Preamble

The House met at half past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

QUEEN'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS)

THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:

I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PRIVATE BILLS (PROCEDURE)

Motion made,
That—the Promoters of every Private Bill which originated in this House in the last Session and which is listed in Schedule A to this Order, or which originated in the House of Lords in the last Session and which is listed in Schedule B to this Order may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
—every such Bill which originated in this House shall be presented to the House not later than the seventh day after this day;
—there shall be deposited with every Bill so presented a Declaration signed by the Agent for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the last Session;
—every Bill so presented shall be laid by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office upon the Table of the House on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill was presented;
—every Bill listed in Part I of Schedule A shall, after being so laid on the Table, be deemed to have been read the first, second, and third time, and shall pass;
—every Bill listed in Part II of Schedule A shall, after being so laid on the Table, be deemed to have been read the first and second time and reported from Committee and ordered to lie upon the Table;
—when any Bill originating in the Lords, which was brought from the House of Lords in the last Session and to which this Order relates, is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a Declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session, and, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a Declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed—

(i) in the case of the Buckinghamshire County Council Bill [Lords], the London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] the South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill [Lords] and the United Medical and Dental Schools Bill [Lords], to have been read the first and second time and committed and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such

amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the last Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
(ii) in the case of the Nottingham Park Estate Bill [Lords], to have been read the first and second time and committed;
(iii) in the case of the Medway Tunnel Bill [Lords] and the Vale of Glamorgan (Barry Harbour) Bill [Lords], to have been read the first time and ordered to be read a second time;
(iv) in the case of the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 3) Bill [Lords], to have been read the first time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills;

—in respect of all the Bills listed in Schedules A and B to this Order, the various stages deemed to have been taken shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been taken;
—only such Petitions as were presented against any Bill brought from the Lords in the last Session which stood referred to the Committee on the Bill and which have not been withdrawn shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill with the same title in the present Session;
—in relation to any Bill to which this Order applies Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to Committee of Petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
—in respect of any Bill originating in the House of Lords to which this Order relates and upon which the Examiners have reported in the last Session that no Standing Order not previously inquired into was applicable thereto, the Examiners shall, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, be deemed to have made the same report in the present Session;
—no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on any of the Bills to which this Order relates so far as Fees were incurred during the last Session;
—this House doth concur with the Lords in their Resolution contained in their Message [22nd November] relating to the River Tees Barrage and Crossing Bill [Lords], the Happisburgh Lighthouse Bill [Lords], the Great Yarmouth Port Authority Bill [Lords], the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill [Lords], the Heathrow Express Railway Bill [Lords], the London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill [Lords] and the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Bill [Lords].

Schedule A

Part I

1. City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill
2. Hythe Marina Village (Southampton) Wavescreen Bill
3. Isle of Wight Bill
4. New Southgate Cemetery and Crematorium Limited Bill
5. St. George's Hill, Weybridge, Estate Bill
6. Penzance Albert Pier Extension Bill

Part II

1. British Film Institute Southbank Bill
2. British Railways Bill
3. City of London (Various Powers) Bill
4. Redbridge London Borough Council Bill

Schedule B

1. Buckinghamshire County Council Bill [Lords]
2. London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]
3. South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill [Lords]
4. United Medical and Dental Schools Bill [Lords]
5. Nottingham Park Estate Bill [Lords]
6. Medway Tunnel Bill [Lords]
7. Vale of Glamorgan (Barry Harbour) Bill [Lords]
8. Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 3) Bill [Lords]—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Thursday 30 November.

SCOTTISH EPISCOPAL CLERGY WIDOWS' AND ORPHANS' FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Rifkind presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to the Scottish Episcopal Clergy Widows' and Orphans' Fund; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered on Tuesday 5 December and to be printed. [Bill 6.]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Romania

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new representations he intends to make to the President of Romania on human rights.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): We will continue to protest strongly to the Romanian Government on every appropriate occasion about their appalling human rights performance.

Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that today's news of the escape of Nadia Comaneci proves once again that life in Romania is unbearable, even for its top privileged people? Has he noticed that Ceaucescu has called on the butchers of Tiananmen square to join him in a crusade to make permanent the Stalinist gulags of China and Romania? Will the Minister today announce a counter-crusade by East and West—a panEuropean crusade—using the powerful instruments of broadcasting and international pressure to persuade and to encourage Romania on its long march towards democracy?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman has already played some part in such a crusade. I know that he has been broadcasting on the BBC, which has helped to keep alive the guttering flame of freedom in Romania. I shall certainly talk to the BBC authorities to see what can be done to help through the Romanian language service of the world service.

Mr. Hunter: In his dealings with President Ceaucescu on human rights, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the further isolation of Romania will achieve little? Will he seek to explore and improve the existing contact through trade that is to the advantage of the United Kingdom and Romania?

Mr. Waldegrave: I take a rather different view from my hon. Friend on this matter. We do not intend to interfere particularly with trade, but this is a time to bring all pressure to bear on Romania. That Her Majesty's Government have been making some headway on this may be evidenced by the fact that recently, on instructions, the Romanian abassador accused me of menacing revisionist Hungarian plots. That may show that we are making some progress.

Mr. Skinner: Did the Minister see the report the other day that the President of Romania got 67 standing ovations? Is there any truth in the rumour that the British Prime Minister will continue in office until the Tory party conference gives her—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions must be made relevant.

Mr. Waldegrave: It is our privilege to be able to make such jokes. If only such jokes were available to the inhabitants of Romania.

Drugs

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his plans for an international conference in London on reducing the demand for cocaine and other illegal drugs.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Her Majesty's Government are holding a world summit of Ministers in London in April 1990 to look at ways of reducing the demand for drugs, and confronting in particular the growing threat from cocaine and crack. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will open the summit and President Barco of Colombia and the Secretary-General of the United Nations have both agreed to speak.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: My right hon. Friend will agree that if this 20th century evil is to be defeated every individual, family and community must be made aware of the problem and must be prepared to will the means to defeat it. My right hon. Friend, in his previous high office of Home Secretary, took a lead role nationally and internationally in this matter. How many Departments are co-operating at home, and at what level? Apart from the London conference, what plans does my right hon. Friend have to take this matter further internationally?

Mr. Hurd: On the second point, the United Nations general assembly will hold a special session on drugs from 20 to 23 February. I hope very much to attend and to speak on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, as I mean to retain the personal involvement to which my hon. Friend kindly referred.
It now falls to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to take the lead in co-ordinating the efforts of all the Departments involved—not just in enforcement, although that is important, but in education and in reducing the demand for drugs, which in my view is even more important.

Mr. Vaz: The Foreign Secretary should be aware that in the past two years the amount of crack seizures in Britain has increased 20 times. Does he agree that the main thrust of conferences such as that to be held in London should not necessarily be international co-operation between Governments, but learning from the experiences and failures of countries such as America? America has established cocaine helplines and the Select Committee on Home Affairs has been urging our Government to do likewise. Does he agree that we should look at the examples of preventive measures that have been introduced by other nations?

Mr. Hurd: Certainly it needs enforcement and prevention. Enforcement is crucial, and we shall press ahead as fast as we can with negotiating agreements with other countries for the confiscation of the assets of drug traffickers. Eleven such agreements are now in place and I shall be looking for more. The hon. Gentleman is right that we must also learn from the experiences, good and bad, of other countries, in particular the United States. In some places effective preventive measures have been introduced, but in others they have not and we need to learn from both experiences.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: In acknowledging the decisions taken by the Government to tackle the drugs problem—

demonstrated by initiative after initiative—and welcoming the international conference, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is satisfied that our European partners and international friends recognise sufficiently the seriousness of the problem that we face?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, I think so. In my previous job I had occasion to discuss it with all the European Ministers of the Twelve who were involved. Although the approach is somewhat different in some countries, they all realise the danger. That is particularly true of the countries of the southern part of Europe—Italy and Spain—which recognise the danger of becoming motorways for the passage of cocaine from Latin America into the rest, of Europe.

Nicaragua

Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to discuss the situation in Nicaragua with his European counterparts; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance has been offered to the Government of Nicaragua in preparation for February's election.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): We have regular discussions on Nicaragua with our European Community partners. At the invitation of the Nicaraguan Supreme Electoral Council, we have appointed an official British election observer for the elections. The European Community is currently considering providing assistance.

Mr. Wray: Does the Minister agree that the Nicaraguan people are not the Communist menace as stated by the Honduran Government and the United States? Why does Britain act as a Trojan horse to the Nicaraguan people? Does the Minister agree that President Ortega was treated in an appalling manner when he visited this country? He was shown the floorboards, but when President Cristiani of E1 Salvador visited he got the red-carpet treatment.

Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman will agree that we should judge the performance of the Nicaraguan Government carefully and on the facts. We wish to see free and fair elections. When they take place, and are not interfered with by the Government, and when the constitution has been restored to normal and lost its present features—whereby the Sandinistas keep control of the army, police and judiciary, come what may—we shall know that there is democracy in Nicaragua.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am assured that it is normal custom to be notified when questions are linked. These questions should not have been linked in the way that the Minister has done, and he should have had the courtesy to—

Mr. Speaker: Order. They are linked by Government. It is normal courtesy to inform Members. I call on the hon. Gentleman to ask question No. 10.

Mr. Banks: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Nicaraguan authorities require about $25 million to ensure that elections are conducted efficiently and fairly.
So far they have received about $10 million from western European Governments, but not one cent from this country, despite their request. The electoral board wants that money for registration and identity cards and for training electoral returning officers. Will the Government provide resources for the Nicaraguan Government to ensure that the elections are conducted fairly and openly, or does the Minister want the elections to fail, just like his masters in Washington?

Mr. Sainsbury: The best help to ensure free and fair elections in Nicaragua would be for the opposition to have equal access to the media. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support that. About his question being linked with question No. 3, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the European counterparts to whom he should talk about Nicaragua is the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union? Will he take time to talk to him about the arms and missiles going into Nicaragua and being used from there to destabilise other countries in Central America? If the Soviet Union is serious about wanting world peace, it should desist from that practice.

Mr. Sainsbury: I assure my hon. Friend that we share the view of the leaders of Central America and our European Community partners that the supply of arms to the region is one of the most destabilising factors and one which most endangers progress to democracy.

Mr. Wilkinson: Further to that point, will Her Majesty's Government, in concert with their European counterparts, produce a joint policy to ensure that every possible pressure is brought to bear upon the Nicaraguan authorities to stop the vile practice of supplying arms and guerrillas equipment to the guerillas in E1 Salvador who are destroying democracy and seeking to subvert a democratically elected Government?

Mr. Sainsbury: The supply of arms to the FMLN is a flagrant breach of the Esquipulas commitment and even goes against the recent promises made by President Ortega at the Tela summit in August. It must make it more difficult—

Mr. Banks: Yankee lickspittle!

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) must not utter such words in the Chamber. Will he withdraw his remarks?

Mr. Banks: Would you, Mr. Speaker, accept "lackey"? Frankly, the Government are a bunch of United States lackeys in relation to—

Mr. Speaker: Order. These are foreign affairs questions and we should behave with decorum.

Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that even the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) would agree that we should seek peaceful solutions to disputes in the area and progress to real democracy. The supply of arms does not assist that process.

Mr. Foulkes: As all sides have agreed that the elections in Nicaragua should not only be fair, but be seen to be fair, will the Government agree to give technical assistance in the registration and voting procedure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) reasonably and moderately asked—[Interruption.] That

was in the early part of his remarks. Will the Government also press the Americans to ensure that the Contra forces are demobilised and allowed to participate in the elections. and the United Nations supervisory force is in place and operating as soon as possible? Before the superpowers summit will the Government remind President Bush of the Americans' part in stoking up this conflict in Central America?

Mr. Sainsbury: The European Community is currently considering giving aid and we would make our usual contribution of 20 per cent. to any aid that is given. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have also provided an election observer. I reiterate that the important issue in ensuring free and fair elections in Nicaragua is that the Government there should provide equal opportunity, as we would expect in this country, for the Opposition to have access to the media.

Social Charter

Mr. Rooker: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Ministers in his Department have participated in European Community discussions on the draft charter of fundamental social rights.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Francis Maude): My right hon. Friend and I have discussed the charter with colleagues in the Community on several occasions.

Mr. Rooker: Will the Minister be good enough to share with the House exactly what parts of the charter are opposed by him and his colleagues? Do they oppose the right to annual holidays, to decent pay, to arbitration to settle disputes and to improve employee participation and health and safety, or do they oppose the fact that such rights as exist in member states cannot be lessened under the charter?

Mr. Maude: Our concern is straightforward. It is that the European Community should do what only it can do. By and large, the matters dealt with by the social charter are properly dealt with by member states themselves. It is surprising to hear the hon. Gentleman apparently supporting the extension of competence by the European Community to impose on member states matters that can properly be dealt with by those states. That shows that the hon. Gentleman wants a politicians' Europe, not a people's Europe.

Mr. Butler: Will my hon. Friend assure me that we will not accept any social charter which is Socialism by the back door?

Mr. Maude: We would strongly resist any such charter. The present draft has made some movement in our direction as a result of our standing firmly against the original draft. For the reasons that I have set out, it is still not acceptable to us and we shall continue to resist it.

Sir Russell Johnston: Does the Minister accept that if there is free movement of labour throughout the Community individual workers have a right to expect the same standard of treatment in each country?

Mr. Maude: That approach is unacceptable. Every member state in the Community is a democracy and it is


for each country to establish for itself those conditions and principles that are appropriate to its history, background, relative prosperity and all other factors. A sort of identikit set of conditions should not be imposed from the centre regardless of whether they are appropriate in every country. Over-regulating in the way that the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest would price people out of jobs. That might lead to our present rate of unemployment, which is well below the Community average, rising to or beyond the average.

Mr. Rowe: Will my hon. Friend assure us that in his discussions he took into account the detailed and hard work of Members of the European Parliament? Does he agree that one of the best ways of controlling the Commission is to pay attention to what the Parliament has to say?

Mr. Maude: I discussed this matter with Members of the European Parliament and those discussions were useful. As the discussions proceeded and as more and more people looked at the fine print of the charter and the action programme that would follow its proposals, we found increasing sympathy for our view.

Mr. Anderson: Will the Minister honestly admit that in his discussions with our partners our negotiating tactics are much in question, and that the absolutist and strident rejection of the social charter by the Prime Minister has lost us much good will in the Community and has harmed British interests? Does he agree that far more constructive than that strident rejection would be a policy of, "Yes, but"? We should not have condemnation and rejection followed by grudging concessions.

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman is wholly misguided. We have set out our specific objections in a reasonable and sensible way. As I said earlier, there has been some movement in our direction, which we welcome, but it is still not enough to enable us to sign the draft social charter. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that a sensible negotiating tactic in the European Community is simply to seek consensus on every occasion, it is lucky that he has never been a member of a Government.

Poland and Hungary

Miss Emma Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what progress Her Majesty's Government are making in setting up a know-how fund for Poland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Butterfill: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is being given to Poland and Hungary in their efforts to establish parliamentary democracy.

Mr. Hurd: We established a know-how fund for Poland after General Jaruzelski's visit to Britain in June. This will contribute £25 million over the next five years towards projects that will underpin Polish democracy and help economic reform. I am glad to announce that it will now be doubled in size to £50 million. Moreover, we shall be making a contribution of $100 million to a stabilisation fund set up in support of the agreement being discussed

between the International Monetary Fund and the Polish Government. Finally, we shall be spending £15 million on a major project to improve the Polish food supply.
A know-how fund will provide British expertise for Hungary, amounting to £25 million over five years, and will operate from next year.

Miss Nicholson: In my work with the Save the Children Fund, I grew to learn of the value of a cash donation and immediate aid. I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that credits given by other nations, although they may sound large numerically, mean little in terms of cash as they have to be repaid and cannot immediately be used. Will my right hon. Friend pass on this place's warm tribute to Mr. Lech Walesa during his visit to London and say how glad we all are that Her Majesty's Government are helping his country to come out of a long darkness into the light of democracy?

Mr. Hurd: I shall certainly pass on my hon. Friend's message to Mr. Lech Walesa. She is right in her earlier point. Food supplies are crucial, and we contribute to the European Community's supply of free food to Poland. She is also right that this is one of the many occasions when those who give quickly, give twice. This is what we are doing—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is some backchat this afternoon. I hope that hon. Members will listen to these important questions.

Mr. Butterfill: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) in congratulating my right hon. Friend on an imaginative package. I reinforce her view that to give cash at this time is doubly important. When Poland is so heavily burdened with debt, it would be wrong to offer loans, and I congratulate the Government on offering cash. It is especially pleasant that it is being made available when Lech Walesa is starting his visit. In what sectors will cash be available? Will it be available for the financial advice that is so urgently needed?

Mr. Hurd: The know-how fund, which is already being spent, has moved into action quickly. It is designed for projects, which are being examined, to underpin the creation of Polish democracy. That goes fairly wide, and we are willing to consider all suggestions for sensible projects that come under this general heading.
I mentioned the cash, but I should also mention the trade package that has been agreed in two Council meetings in Brussels which will substantially improve the possibility of Poland earning her own living. We have done our best—rather successfully—to make sure that any burden that may fall on the Twelve as a result will be evenly spread across the members of the Community.

Mr. John Evans: Will the Foreign Secretary give an undertaking that, whatever discussions he has with the Polish and Hungarian authorities about democracy in those countries, he will not discuss trade unionism with them because he is liable to be told that in those countries trade unions are freer to take action on industrial affairs than they are in Great Britain?

Mr. Hurd: I should be amazed to be told anything, of the kind. In Poland and Hungary, people are looking to the free institutions of the West in respect of social as well as economic legislation.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the Foreign Secretary consider giving some financial assistance to encourage younger people in Hungary and Poland to visit the United Kingdom to see how parliamentary institutions work and to make contact with the youth movements of our political parties?

Mr. Hurd: Polish visitors have been coming here already with that aim in mind, and I shall consider any sensible and realistic proposals to that end. That will be part of the underpinning of new democracy in those countries.

Mr. Soames: Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the work of the Great Britain/East European Centre under its distinguished chairman, Mr. Alan Brooke Turner? Given the great importance of these matters, will my right hon. Friend see what he can do to increase the grant that the Home Office generously gives to that excellent organisation?

Mr. Hurd: I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion without making any promise to him.

Mr. Hardy: The Foreign Secretary will be aware that one of Poland's great problems is environmental pollution. As the Polish economy recovers, as we hope that it will, that problem may get worse before it gets better. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider joining Sweden and certain other member states of the Council of Europe which are giving direct assistance to Poland to try to counter the graver features of these problems?

Mr. Hurd: The new Polish Government are struggling valiantly with a range of problems, and I am sure that environmental pollution is one of them. I am not dismissing the importance of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but there must be priorities and the importance of getting free institutions started and enabling the Poles to get through what may be a rough, hard winter are the two matters to which we are putting our minds, as the package that I have announced shows.

Extradition

Mr. Stanbrook: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress achieved towards adopting a European Communitywide simplified system of extradition.

Mr. Maude: The recent agreement between EC member states has so far been signed by nine member states. United Kingdom implementation of this measure, which we support, will require some further revision of our extradition laws.

Mr. Stanbrook: In view of the need for harmonisation to meet the threat of international crime, including drug trafficking, does my hon. Friend agree that our extradition arrangements with the member states of the European Community are in a terrible mess? The Extradition Act 1989, which is a consolidation measure, does not include the Republic of Ireland or the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978. That measure was supposed to provide for us to accede to the European convention on extradition, but progress has been slow. In fact, no real progress has been made. We are still negotiating an old-style treaty of extradition with Italy, and have been doing so for about 15

years. Is it not time that we got down to the problem, instituted a backing-of-warrants system applying to the entire Community, and trusted the judicial systems of our fellow member states to implement it?

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend is a formidable expert on these matters but I think that useful progress has been made. It would have been unusual for a consolidation measure such as the Extradition Act 1989 to include substantive amendments to extradition law. We shall bring into force when we can the useful but relatively narrow changes that the recent agreement embodies.

Mr. Hood: Does the Minister know that last night five hon. Members were extradited from Downing street as a result of their protest about the visit of the South Korean president? Why are we condoning the presence of such cut-throats in the Chamber and in Downing street?

Mr. Maude: I can take no responsibility for the hon. Gentleman's behaviour last night.

Mr. Gale: Will my hon. Friend pay especial attention to the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs on drug trafficking, when it is published? Does he recognise that an extradition treaty throughout the countries of the Council of Europe, as well as throughout the European Community, is vital if we are to win the war against drug trafficking?

Mr. Maude: It is essential that there should be good extradition arrangements which work in practical terms in an effective and expeditious way. These are essentially matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, and I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's useful remarks are brought to his attention.

Mr. Mallon: Will the Minister give an assurance that in the event of a European extradition arrangement being adhered to by all countries, the British Government will not take the first opportunity to derogate from it as they have done on 37 occasions in relation to judgments of the European Court and European regulations?

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman's point is not related to extradition treaties. It is important to make extradition work in a practical and effective way and we shall continue to work towards that end.

Middle East

Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the peace process in the Palestinian-Israeli dispute.

Mr. Waldegrave: We fully support current efforts to bring about a dialogue between the Israeli Government and a representative team of Palestinians.

Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does my hon. Friend agree that Israel must have secure borders, that Israel is a democracy which changes its leaders through the ballot box and that attitudes within Israel are influenced by, and still troubled by, the fact that it was the Arab Legion which first occupied the West Bank?

Mr. Waldegrave: I can give an unequivocal yes to the first question; Israel does have a right to secure borders. I


can give an unequivocal yes to the second question; Israel is a democracy and has the procedures of a democracy. The third part of the question, however, seems to be contingent on the idea that delving into history is the right approach whereas what is needed now is an act of trust to get talks going face to face.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Does the Minister regret the fact that on Friday no Minister dealt with the Government's attempt to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli question? Will he ensure that the proper concentration now being given by the Foreign Office to the problems of eastern Europe will not divert Ministers' attention from the clear abuse of human rights being perpetrated against the Palestinian people on the West Bank and in Gaza by the Israeli defence forces?

Mr. Waldegrave: I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman. No one can deny the importance of what is happening in eastern Europe, but that should not mask the fact that in some respects things are going backwards in the occupied territories. The schools are closed again and we are joining our partners to protest about that, and the offices of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency are being harassed again. Those things are not tolerable and are against all the international conventions to which Israel is a party.

Sir Dennis Walters: Bearing in mind that for more than a year the PLO has made all the concessions necessary to make progress towards a peace settlement in the middle east and that the Israeli Prime Minister Mr. Shamir has remained obdurately negative while repression on the West Bank has continued unabated, is it not strange that we continue to talk at top level with Mr. Shamir but not with Mr. Arafat? Should not that situation be changed as soon as possible?

Mr. Waldegrave: What is essential now is to urge both sides to take the brave step of meeting face to face in Cairo, as proposed by Secretary of State Baker. The Israelis, with provisos, have accepted his five points and we are urging the PLO clearly to do the same so that the first, historic meeting between an Israeli Government mission and a Palestinian mission would have a chance to take place.

Mr. Faulds: Will the Minister convey to the Foreign Secretary my warm welcome on his return to his old stamping ground at the Foreign Office, where he will perform with much greater distinction than he did as a somewhat illiberal Home Secretary? Would it not be advisable for him in his new office, which he well merits, to make the strongest continuing representations to the Israeli Government about the appalling conduct of their forces towards the Palestinians in the occupied territories and towards the Lebanese in the continuing illegal Israeli occupation of the south of that country?

Mr. Waldegrave: It is never difficult to hear the hon. Gentleman and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State heard him on this occasion. I join him in reminding the House that the Israeli occupation of parts of south Lebanon contributes to the problems of that country from which all foreign forces should withdraw.

Mr. Dykes: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is a growing majority in Israel in favour of peace talks between the Israeli authorities and the legitimate representatives of the Palestinians, and we all know who they are? Will he

confirm that, despite delays, the possibility of such talks is better than ever, and that if the Americans do not lose interest in the peace protest they can best persuade the Israeli Government and Mr. Shamir to show the necessary courage to reach out for peace and peace talks?

Mr. Waldegrave: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Yesterday I met the Israeli Minister, Mr. Mordecai Gur and had a very good talk with him. He reminds one that it is naive to think that there are no powerful voices raised in Israel on what he and I would regard as the right side of the argument. With the diplomacy now being exercised by the Americans and by the Egyptians, there is an opportunity to start a dialogue.

Summit Meeting (Malta)

Mr. Duffy: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultation has been sought by the United States Secretary of State in preparation for the Malta summit meeting on 2 December between President Bush and Mr. Gorbachev.

Mr. Hurd: There have been frequent consultations, including a recent visit to London by the United States Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the President of the United States met at Camp David on 24 November.

Mr. Duffy: That all sounds rather casual. Is not the Secretary of State aware that the North Atlantic Assembly, which includes some of his own right hon. and hon. Friends as well as some of mine, believes that the State Department had a special responsibility to consult all its allies before the Malta summit? Not only have such summits a changing significance as we move from a bipolar to a multipolar world, but there is genuine anxiety on all sides that there should be no more Yaltas or Reykjaviks.

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that the summits in which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister takes part tend to be casual affairs, and that is certainly not the case on this occasion. Nor was there anything casual about the way in which the United States set about notifying and consulting its allies on what is in prospect at Malta. On the contrary, the American Administration have taken great care both in public and in private to stress that the matters to be discussed are of prime interest to their allies, including this country, and that the American president has no intention of concluding agreements with the Societ Union in the absence of those allies at Malta. The president will himself be attending the NATO conference on Monday to report what happened at the summit. That follows the advance assurances and consultations which I mentioned, which could hardly have been more complete.

Mr. Ian Taylor: As it was Sir Winston Churchill, in the later stages of the second world war after talks on the island of Malta, who said:
From Malta to Yalta, we must not falter",
does my right hon. Friend agree that Gennady Gerasimov's use of the phrase "Malta to Yalta" was, given its implications, unfortunate? Does my right hon. Friend welcome President Bush's recent clear statement that he will not seek to make bilateral deals over the heads of the European allies, particularly in respect of arms reductions?

Mr. Hurd: I agree that Mr. Gerasimov's choice of phrase is sometimes a bit odd. I did not care for his phrase, "Sinatra doctrine", to describe an important statement of Mr. Gorbachev's views made in Helsinki. My hon. Friend is perfectly right in his second point; I referred to the statement that he mentioned when answering the original question.

Mr. Grocott: Will the Foreign Secretary take every opportunity to urge upon President Bush that the key reason why the world has welcomed recent events in eastern Europe is that it rejects the concept of superpowers using small powers as instruments of their foreign policy? Will the right hon. Gentleman urge upon President Bush that just as the Soviet Union has stopped treating eastern Europe as its backyard, it is high time that the United States stopped treating central and south America as its backyard?

Mr. Hurd: One starting point of the changes in eastern Europe was the decision by Mr. Gorbachev that Soviet troops will not intervene in the internal pressures for reform in eastern Europe. There is no parallel to that in Central America.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the widespread events in eastern Europe give the British Government no excuse for postponing the further development of the European Community? Rather, we should take the opportunity to strengthen and enhance further the Community—and in particular, West Germany's role within it.

Mr. Hurd: We are all in favour of strengthening and enhancing the Community's role. The first step is to complete in practice that which we have already undertaken to do in principle. On that, we and the European Commission are perhaps the closest allies in pressing for the passing of the legislation required under the Single European Act. We are perfectly prepared to discuss the steps that should follow, but the best impression will be created if we successfully carry through that which has already been undertaken.

Dr. Thomas: Will the Foreign Secretary accept that large sections of public opinion in the United States are keen to use the opportunity created by Mr. Gorbachev to scale down the United States presence in Europe? Will the Prime Minister be an isolationist in NATO and oppose such reductions, as she has already been an isolationist in the Commonwealth and in the European Community?

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that that is the position. This year ambitious negotiations are taking place in Vienna —the conventional forces in Europe negotiations—in which we shall play a full and enthusiastic part. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the talks are designed to bring about a substantial scaling down. We are not opposed to a change—indeed, we have been one of the protagonists of change—but we believe that it should be orderly change so that nobody at any stage believes that legitimate security interests are being put at risk.

Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that President Bush, in preparing for his talks with Mr. Gorbachev, is made fully aware that the problems of eastern Europe are due to the rigid adherence to Socialism in eastern Europe over many years? Will he ensure that President Bush points out to Mr. Gorbachev that as our

Prime Minister has had a successful policy of rigid adherence to capitalism there is much that we can teach the eastern bloc in terms of our expertise in defeating Socialism?

Mr. Hurd: What we are seeing in eastern Europe is a series of edifices which looked very impressive and which deceived many Opposition Members, but which turned out to have no foundations because they were not based on the consent of the people. By contrast, in Britain and in western Europe we have institutions about which we argue a great deal, but which have foundations and therefore will endure.

Mr. Kaufman: Since the Prime Minister, when she was in the United States for consultations with President Bush, said that unlike the German Foreign Minister and Lord Carrington she still believes in the modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons, will the Foreign Secretary tell us whom he envisages as the targets of those short-range nuclear weapons? Are they the millions of Poles who elected a Solidarity-led Government, the millions of East Germans who forced their way through the Berlin wall, or the millions of Czechs who have just overthrown the Communist Government in Prague?

Mr. Hurd: There is no difference between President Bush, the Governments of the Alliance, the German Government and our own about the comprehensive concept which lays down that first we complete the CFE negotiations, then we enter into discussions about the short-range nuclear weapons and then, if there is a need to discuss modernisation, we do so. That is the entirely logical and acceptable answer to which the Alliance is agreed.

Mr. Steel: Does the Secretary of State recall that after the meeting between the Prime Minister and President Bush there were several press reports, inspired or otherwise, which suggested that she was urging caution at the forthcoming Malta meeting in relation to progress on conventional force reductions? Will the right hon. Gentleman, in his new non-subservient role, make it quite clear that if the Malta summit results in speeding up conventional force reductions in Europe, the Government will welcome that?

Mr. Hurd: There is already an ambitious programme for conventional force reductions by negotiation with the Soviet Union. The president has made it clear—wisely, I believe—that he does not intend to negotiate aboard a ship in the Mediterranean new arrangements that go beyond that. To do so at that time and in that way would cause a peck of trouble within the Alliance. The president knows that, and it will not happen. What will happen through the usual machinery of the Alliance are, first, discussions on CFE and then the other steps that may be necessary. I have already mentioned the comprehensive concept and the discussions on short-range nuclear weapons.

Mr. Speaker: Question No. 11—Mr. David Atkinson.

Mr. Ron Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I must hear it. What is the point of order?

Mr. Ron Brown: Was it in order for you to call the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr.


Steel) when he was not even standing? Is it not the case that in this place we are all equal but that some are more equal than others?

Mr. Speaker: We are all equal. The hon. Gentleman was equal yesterday.

Council of Europe

Mr. Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those eastern European states that have expressed an interest in applying for full membership of the Council of Europe.

Mr. Waldegrave: Hungary formally lodged an application to join the Council of Europe on 16 November. On the same day Poland and Yugoslavia expressed their interest in full membership when the time was right, as they put it.

Mr. Atkinson: The qualifications for full membership of the Council of Europe are a pluralist democracy and respect for human rights and the rule of law. Respect for human rights is, as we understand it, under the terms of the European convention on human rights. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that those conditions must be fully satisfied by any applicant, however welcome the application may be?

Mr. Waldegrave: The Council of Europe has potentially a very important role to play as the forum or body that the newly emergent democracies of eastern Europe can join and thereby show that they are genuine democracies. It would be totally paradoxical if we watered down the criteria for membership at this moment. That would be to betray the people in those countries who are seeking to achieve full democracy and full human rights.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister accept that the conditions to which he referred will have to be met? Does he also agree that the progress made so far in 1989 has been quite remarkable?

Mr. Waldegrave: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I think that he would agree with me that it would be wrong to subvert the basis of an organisation which offers the reality of the common European house to which Mr. Gorbachev sometimes refers.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that part of the interests of those countries which are seeking membership of the Council of Europe stems from the wise decision, supported by this House, to give them the opportunity to join the Inter-Parliamentary Union? In the light of the Foreign Secretary's earlier responses, will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government will take a broad view of our support for parliamentary democracy and its know-how funding so as to encourage the process of dialogue between parliamentarians in this House and in eastern Europe as prelude to Council of Europe membership?

Mr. Waldegrave: It is sad that Opposition Members below the Gangway find this all so tedious. Nothing can be more exciting to this House than seeing other countries seeking to achieve the freedoms that we have here. The Inter-Parliamentary Union contacts to which my hon. Friend referred have played a valuable part in the process.

Treaties

Mr. Hanley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the implications for existing treaties of recent events in the Soviet bloc; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waldegrave: We welcome moves towards freedom and democracy in eastern Europe. They do not alter the need for us to maintain a sound defence, based on our NATO and Western European Union commitments.

Mr. Hanley: The whole House must welcome the exciting and hopeful events in the eastern bloc in the past few weeks, but will my hon. Friend please say whether the United Kingdom will be negotiating as an individual country with individual countries or as a member of the European Community and of NATO with a still-existing Warsaw pact?

Mr. Waldegrave: The conventional arms talks in Vienna—the CFE talks—are taking place under the Helsinki aegis. Technically, we do not negotiate alliance to alliance, but the NATO Alliance should concert its efforts. The importance of that Alliance remains.

Mr. Winnick: All Labour Members of Parliament who believe in civil liberties in all countries greatly welcome what has occurred in eastern Europe. Does the Minister agree that the ordinary people of Czechoslovakia and East Germany deserve to be fully congratulated on the way in which they have demonstrated against dictatorships and won? Next week the Czech people will, we hope, end 41 years of dictatorship.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am sure that in reality the House is at one on these matters. I welcome what the hon. Gentleman says. It certainly reflects our views on this side of the House.

Legislation

Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a table showing the areas of legislative decision making over which the European Economic Community has no competence following the implementing of the Single European Act and the European Court decisions which have clarified its scope of operation.

Mr. Maude: The treaty of Rome, as amended by the Single European Act, lays down the areas of activity for which there is Community competence. All other matters fall to member states.

Mr. Taylor: Would it not help if the Government published a table showing which laws we can still pass in this House in a democratic manner? Does it not worry him that so many laws affecting the people of Britain are made in Brussels, where direct democracy is a sick joke? In view of the rising tide of concern, at least on the Conservative Benches, about some of the recent activities of the EEC, will the Government agree at least not to close the door on the sensible proposal advanced by President Mitterrand and others that Britain should consider rejoining the European Free Trade Association so that we could trade freely without all the Socialist nonsense being applied by Brussels?

Mr. Maude: I do not think that that is really what was being suggested. In any event, I cannot go along with my hon. Friend's suggestion that that would be a suitable way for us to proceed. Our role should be to play a central part in the development of the European Community. We have become increasingly influential in the discussions that have taken place and in shaping the way in which the European Community develops, and our priority should be to work hard to ensure that that happens.
My hon. Friend suggested that we should provide a list of matters which still fall to domestic competence, but surely that is the wrong way round. The Single European Act and the treaty of Rome set out explicitly those matters in which member states agreed that there should be Community competence. Everything else remains for the domestic Governments of member states. We shall watch extremely closely to ensure that Community competence is not extended in a way that is not justified by the treaty. We shall challenge when appropriate in the European Court and argue our case as we have always done successfully in the past.

Dr. Godman: Does the Minister agree that the recent interim injunction issued by the president of the European Court of Justice that led to the Government amending the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 plainly demonstrates the power of the European Court and the Commission over national legislatures and national legislation? What steps are the Government taking to avoid a repetition of such a decision?

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman will know that we argued strongly against that interim judgment—I stress that it is an interim judgment—but we believe in the rule of law and if a court adjudicates so as to require us to follow its direction, we shall do so. It seems slightly at odds with the hon. Gentleman's contention that the party that he supports is concerned that we should sign up to a social charter which would encourage the imposition on us by Brussels of matters which are properly for this Parliament to decide.

Mr. Colvin: I accept that the so-called Sinatra doctrine is the wrong strategy for east-west relations, but does my hon. Friend accept that it would form a very good basis for our attitude towards the social charter?

Mr. Maude: We take rather seriously a proposition espoused by other member states and by the president of

the European Commission. I refer to the principle of subsidiarity, which says that member states should do what they can—[interruption.]

Dr. Godman: We cannot hear a word.

Mr. Maude: I will say it again for the hon. Gentleman's benefit. The European Community should carry out only those functions which cannot properly be carried out by member states. I wish that Opposition Members would follow the same practice.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to give notice that, owing to the Minister's unsatisfactory reply, I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Boat People

Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Vietnamese boat people are currently living in camps in Hong Kong.

Mr. Hurd: There are almost 57,000 Vietnamese boat people living in camps in Hong Kong, 12,800 of whom are refugees. The remainder either await screening, or have been determined after screening not to be eligible for refugee status as defined by the 1951 United Nations convention and 1967 protocol.

Mr. Alton: Now that the Vietnamese Government, in another cruel and ironic twist, have said that they will not accept any refugees who are forcibly repatriated, will the Foreign Secretary tell the House where that leaves British policy? Does he accept that in the light of international opposition to forcible repatriation and the payment of blood money we should drop that odious and repugnant policy and put our efforts into finding an internationally acceptable, compassionate and civilised solution?

Mr. Hurd: We are talking about the repatriation of people who, after careful screening, have been found not to be refugees. The international community has accepted that the right place for those people is Vietnam. That was the nature of the agreement last summer. There is nothing unique about such repatriation. It occurs frequently in many places. I have read the press report to which the hon. Gentleman refers. As I told the House on Friday, we are discussing ways and means with the Vietnamese Government and that remains the position.

Standing Order No. 20

Mr. Speaker: I wish to make a brief statement to the House about Standing Order No. 20 applications. I received today notice from four hon. Members that they wished to apply for emergency debates under Standing Order No. 20, but in no case was the application based on an urgent fact raised at the first opportunity. I have informed the hon. Members concerned—there is nothing new about this—that I regret that I cannot hear their applications.
These are important matters for the House. The right to make a three-minute submission to me on a new and urgent matter at 3.30 pm is a valuable and very important opportunity for Back Bench Members. I am anxious that it should not be devalued or threatened, as might be the case if the procedure were abused. I hope that I will have the support of the whole House in declining to hear applications that do not even get to first base.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will hear Mr. Skinner first.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to know on how many previous occasions before television was introduced in the Chamber you made a statement of this kind after various Back-Bench Members had made applications under Standing Order No. 20. There have been many occasions when one hon. Member or two, three or even four hon. Members have made applications and it was made clear that the applications were turned down or not accepted. However, from memory, I believe that this is the first occasion that you have ruled out such applications in this manner. It looks to me like a television fix. I want to know the reason why.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House might be interested in this. My answer to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is that I have seen hon. Members on average twice a week about their Standing Order No. 20 applications. I could not see them all today because of my other commitments. Therefore, I thought it wise to take this opportunity to make a general statement. As I said, all the hon. Members concerned have received a letter explaining why I was unable to hear their submissions.

Mr. Tony Baldry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising from Question Time. In response to question No. 6 about extradition, the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) sought to refer to the President of South Korea in distinctly derogatory terms. It is clear from "Erskine May" that opprobrious reflections on heads of state are against the orders of this House. As the president is here on a visit at the Government's behest, it seems rather unfortunate that this matter should be on the record. Everyone seeking to export to South Korea—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We all know the rules about that. I must confess that I did not quite hear it in that light. If the hon. Gentleman is right, I regret that it was said in that way. I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing it to the attention of the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again today I have had a great many applications to take part in the subsequent debate, which is limited to three hours. It will be very difficult to call all the hon. Members who want to speak if there are so many points of order, however I will try to deal with them if they are matters for me.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one of the four hon. Members whose Standing Order No. 20 applications were refused, I do not challenge your decision or your statement, but I ask you to reflect on two matters. First, Standing Order No. 20 requires that the application should refer to a
specific and important matter that requires urgent consideration".
It is particularly important to Opposition Members that such an opportunity exists. You will confirm that the Government can come forward with any number of statements on any day and you are not required to give permission for statements to be made. For Opposition Members a Standing Order No. 20 application is most important. It is limited and it enables us to draw attention to urgent matters. To offer an alternative by raising matters at business questions is wholly inadequate.
Secondly—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have heard the hon. Gentleman's first point. We must get on. The hon. Gentleman knows why I could not allow his application, but I am sure that he would not wish me to say why at this moment. I urge the House to understand that I am seeking to protect this procedure, which I absolutely agree is a matter of prime importance for Back-Bench Members. The trouble is that if it is abused in any way, new regulations may be introduced, which would perhaps mean that such applications are heard later in the day, which would be to the detriment of Back-Bench Members.

Sir Anthony Grant: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that your decision on Standing Order No. 20 applications will be widely welcomed? Such applications are in danger of becoming an abuse of the procedures of the House and, what is more, monumental bores.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand what you have said. You will know that I am one of the hon. Members who attempted to make a Standing Order No. 20 application today. The matter is so important that I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Lady's application, for reasons that I have privately explained to her and which she has also received in the form of a letter.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the last years of the Labour Government, when the Conservatives were in opposition, there were two or three Standing Order No. 9 applications every day. As you well know, at that time it was believed that it was an organised campaign, but it was not regarded as an abuse of the House. It was felt that, to hold the then Government to account, it was a legitimate way of raising issues. But, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me underline to the House yet again that I am seeking to protect this important


opportunity for Back-Bench Members. I look at every application on its merits and in accordance with the Standing Orders by which I am bound. It is not possible for me as Speaker to go beyond the criteria laid down in the Standing Orders. That is what I am seeking to point out. If the House does not like the Standing Orders, I suggest that the Procedure Committee should look at them again and give different guidelines to the Speaker. At the moment, I can rule only on the basis of the guidelines that have been laid down.

Mr. Robert Parry: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one of the hon. Members who wanted to present a Standing Order No. 20 application, I believe that 500 jobs in my constituency—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has an early-day motion on the Order Paper on this very matter. If he looks at the criteria he will realise that he cannot raise a matter under Standing Order No. 20 if he already has an early-day motion on the Order Paper. It must be about something that is new and has happened today. His early-day motion appeared two days ago.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. No one in the House challenges your judgment, and hon. Members agree with you about the abuse, but because of the television lights it is likely that there will be more applications under Standing Order No. 20. Is it right that the Opposition Front Bench should be allowed to make such applications at any time that might suit them? This House is for all hon. Members of Parliament and the Opposition Front Bench should not abuse the system. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) may be new to this game, but she is not new to the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will allow me to deal with one matter at a time.
The House should look carefully at the Select Committee report, which deals with the whole question of Standing Order No. 20 applications. It suggests that the procedure is an opportunity for Back Benchers to raise matters of urgent interest. Quite simply, the reason for that view is that Front-Bench spokesmen have an opportunity, on regular Opposition days, to raise matters of great importance.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. I am extremely anxious that the House should preserve the Back-Bench opportunities provided by Standing Order No. 20 applications.

Dr. John Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We recognise your difficulties, but some Conservative Members appear to have short memories. In the Session 1978–79, a very short Session, there were no fewer than 66 applications under the Standing Order procedure, and a great many of them were from Conservative Members. Let there be no cant about that.
I wish to support what you have said, Mr. Speaker, in two respects. First, it would not be in the interests of any

hon. Member if the Standing Order No. 20 procedure were to be moved from 3.30 pm. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I would not agree to any proposal to move the procedure from its present time. Secondly, although the procedure is attractive to Back-Bench Members for obvious reasons, there is nothing in the Standing Orders that precludes Front-Bench spokesmen from using the procedure if that is legitimate.
In defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), and notwithstanding your ruling, she has a legitimate case in attempting to seek time in the House to debate the terrible famine in Ethiopia, and I support her in that.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we should now move on.
The shadow Leader of the House was right to suggest that the Standing Order No. 20 procedure does not preclude Front-Bench Members. I do not in any way disagree with the importance of the matter raised by the hon. Lady, but I am bound to remind the House that we debated foreign affairs on Friday, that there will be business questions tomorrow—when the hon. Lady could ask for a debate, and may possibly get one—and there will be Overseas Development Administration questions on Monday.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. As I mentioned the hon. Lady, I shall call her.

Mrs. Clwyd: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The necessity urgently to debate the matter today is because people are dying from famine and hunger today. There has been no opportunity in the House to discuss a matter about which the British public are greatly concerned.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must not seek to raise her application in this way. I know the seriousness of the position in Ethiopia and am sure that it was as serious last Friday and that it will be as serious on Monday. I hope that she will have then an opportunity to raise it—[Interruption.] Order. If the House wants to persist with these matters, we shall never get any business done.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am bound by the Standing Orders as they are. If the House does not like them, I suggest that the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, who is in his place, should look into the matter and provide the Chair with different guidelines—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. I call Mr. Andrew Faulds.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would not a simple answer to your quandary about the proliferation of Standing Order No. 20 applications and the possible abuse of them be to remove from the Chamber these ghastly television cameras?

Mr. Robert Adley: This is a House of Commons matter and I agree with the hon. Member for


Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), because it is true that, on the whole, Opposition Back Benchers rather than Government Back Benchers find it convenient to use the Standing Order No. 20 procedures—or the Standing Order No. 10 procedures, as they used to be. We are reaching the position in this ghastly television era when your reference, Mr. Speaker, to Standing Orders will prove to be out of date because we shall have completely to rewrite the Standing Orders of the House. May I suggest through you, Mr. Speaker, that those concerned with the ordering of the proceedings of the House should soon drew up a list of our traditional procedures, all of which are threatened by the presence in the House of television cameras?

Mr. Speaker: The House has made a decision about television cameras.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Dave Nellist: rose—

Mr. Tam Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Speaker: No, I am not hearing any further points of order—[Interruption.] No, I am not hearing any further points of order on this matter.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: If it is a different point of order, I shall hear it, but it must be a different point of order.

Mr. Dalyell: Yes, it is.

Mr. Speaker: Than I shall take it.

Mr. Dalyell: You have used the words "preserve" and "protect" several times, Mr. Speaker, so may we ask for some information as to whom you are protecting and preserving us from? Who is the enemy in this situation and what exactly have they suggested? Who has suggested that this should be moved to 10 o'clock? Should we not know—

Mr. Speaker: Order. These suggestions have been made —[Interruption.] Order. If the message has not got through, I suppose that I must tell the House yet again that I am seeking to preserve a very important opportunity for Back Benchers. I thank the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) for what he said in that connection.

Ballot for Notices of Motions for Friday 15 December

Mr. James Lamond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Neil Hamilton
Mrs. Alice Mahon
Mr. James Couchman

BILL PRESENTED

CALDEY ISLAND

Mr. Secretary Walker, supported by Mr. Secretary Waddington, Mr. Wyn Roberts and Mr. Ian Grist, presented a Bill to provide for the islands of Caldey and St. Margaret's in the county of Dyfed to be included in the district of South Pembrokeshire for the purposes of local, parliamentary and European elections and for the purposes of local taxation; to include those islands in the districts of the Pembrokeshire coroner and the Pembrokeshire Health Authority; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 7.]

Mr. James Lamond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it a different point of order?

Mr. Lamond: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have had to wait a long time to raise this matter, Mr. Speaker, but I had hoped to catch your eye. My point of order relates to the motion on today's Order Paper in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means. I am a little anxious because I notice that 18 private Bills have been taken together in that motion and that one single objection at 2.30 pm has meant that they have all been deferred. I admit immediately that I am interested in the Bill relating to Greater Manchester. I wonder whether what seems to be a new procedure is to continue. I do not mind hon. Members objecting to one or other of the Bills, but I do not know why I should have to suffer their objecting to the one in which I am interested so that they can object to the others.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is objecting to a procedure. The Chairman of Ways and Means has sought to carry over—

Mr. Skinner: Not carry over.

Mr. Speaker: Revive.

Mr. Skinner: That is the word.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). As the House knows, the Chairman of Ways and Means has sought to revive the Bills that did not succeed in the last Session.—[Interruption.] Because he has tabled them in that way. I imagine that, in the end, we may have to debate the whole issue.

Mr. James Lamond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to delay the House, but this is important. I know that the Bills must be revived or they will fall, but why are 18 of them grouped together? If anyone objects to one of those 18, they all fall. I do not mind the other 17 falling, but I mind if the one relating to Greater Manchester falls.

Mr. Speaker: Other hon. Gentlemen may feel the same way. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Chairman's Panel. I suggest that he consults the Chairman of Ways and Means, who will be able to tell him the answer, because I cannot.

Social Charter

Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I remind the House that this is a three-hour debate. I also repeat that a great many hon. Members want to participate and I urge them and Front Bench spokesmen to make brief contributions so that as many hon. Members as possible may be called.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for taking time out of the debate, but, as you know, I am speaking as the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee on European legislation about the first business on the Order Paper relating to the draft Commission charter of human rights. The Committee published our report on this matter—our 36th report, HC 15—on 1 November. It related to a draft submitted by the Commission of the European Communities in its document No. 8997/89, dated 1 October. The Government have issued an explanatory memorandum on that document and they also recently published a secondary explanatory memorandum dated 24 November. Attached to that memorandum, which is helpful, is another draft of the Community charter of human rights tabled by the current presidency, the President of the French Republic. That is referred to in the motion before us.
The presidency text is the one which will be referred to by the meeting of the European Council in Strasbourg on 8 and 9 December and not the original document tabled by the Commission, on which we have reported and on which most of the decisions and most of the consultations has taken place in the United Kingdom.
The Scrutiny Committee is meeting at 4 pm today and we intend to issue a report—I hope that it will be available before the end of the debate—on the significant differences between the original Commission proposal and those to be discussed at Strasbourg.
I do not complain, nor does the Committee, of the fact that it is the Strasbourg revision by the French presidency that is referred to in the motion before us. The more up to date the document can be the better. The reason for that, however, does not lie with Her Majesty's Government. Of all the 12 assemblies and parliaments of the European Community, this is the only one I know that debates before decision and consults the House about the way in which we deal with EC matters.
May I also refer to the third item on the Order Paper, relating to the shipping industry? Another presidency document, which we have not yet reported on, will be reported on later today and we shall, I hope, put another amendment in the Vote Office before that debate is reached.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, as a point of macro-order, if the debate tonight shows that there are matters that should be debated as a result of the presidency submission, the Leader of the House should at least give some consideration to holding another debate next week before the meeting in Strasbourg.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving the House that information. I am aware that the position relating to the social charter is developing. I do not know whether his Committee will have completed its deliberations before the end of this three-hour debate, but it

certainly will have done so before the shipping debate. If he or another member of his Committee wishes to participate I shall certainly give careful consideration to that.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8997/89 and the proposals described in the un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Employment on 24th November on a Community Charter of Fundamental Social Rights; and endorses the Government's view that the key to increased prosperity and higher living standards is the adoption of policies which stimulate further economic growth and job creation.
As the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has just said, the purpose of this debate is to enable the House to consider the European Commission's draft social charter. I shall take up immediately what the hon. Gentleman said and seek to make my remarks short.
There are changes in the presidency revision of the charter when compared with the Commission's final version. The document covers the same 12 areas and its thrust is the same. The presidency version only became available as a public document on Monday 20 November in the form of a press release from the Commission of the European Communities. In submitting the unnumbered explanatory memorandum on 27 November we were concerned that the latest text of the charter should be
I have the greatest sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman said. These things tend to be announced at press conferences and there is sometimes a delay of days or literally weeks before the final document is obtained. We are not the only country to suffer in this way. This issue will be raised at the meeting of Social Affairs Council tomorrow which I shall attend, and I shall ensure that the Commissioner knows about what the hon. Gentleman has said.
For the avoidance of doubt on the scrutiny debate on the social charter, I should say that I approach the debate from the position of someone who campaigned for Britain's entry into Europe, voted for our membership of the Community and remains enthusiastic for Europe and for Britain's membership of the Community.
As I listened to the Opposition spokesman on the radio this morning, I marvelled at his flexibility. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) was first elected to the House in 1983. At that time, the Labour manifesto said of Europe:
Geography and history determine that Britain is part of Europe, and Labour wants to see Europe safe and prosperous. But the European Economic Community, which does not even include the whole of Western Europe, was never devised to suit us, and our experience as a member of it has made it more difficult for us to deal with our economic and industrial problems.
I was glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman had to say. I am sure that he would wish to address himself to the fact that the election manifesto which brought him into the House only five or six years ago was a commitment to withdraw altogether from the European Community. Frankly, Conservative Members are not prepared and are not inclined to take lectures from the Opposition on the European Community.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Some of us have long memories. The first legislative act of this


Government in 1979 was to remove workers' rights on unfair dismissal. The charter would stop that happening because there could be no regression.

Mr. Fowler: We shall come to that point. I note that the hon. Gentleman does not deny the incontrovertible fact that the Opposition have gone through an entire change and transformation in relation to the social charter and the Community.
This debate is about the kind of Europe that we want to see. It is about the social charter's effects, particularly on the people of the Community, what should be done at Community level and national level.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: rose—

Mr. Fowler: I shall continue for the moment.
The debate is about what kind of social charter there should he and what respect there should be for different national traditions.
Our view is quite clear: there is certainly a social dimension to the European Community. There is no question about that and basically that social dimension is about the creation of new jobs and the reduction of unemployment. That is the crucial issue because there are now no fewer than 14 million unemployed people throughout the Community. No social issue is more important and nothing is socially more important than bringing down unemployment. That is not just the British Government's view. At the Madrid summit the Heads of Government unanimously agreed that job creation and development must have the "top priority" in the completion of the single market.
Our acid test for the social charter is whether in practice it will lead to more jobs and a fall in unemployment. On this issue we speak from a position of strength in Europe. There are now more than 26 million people at work in this country—more than ever before in our history. Since 1983, employment in Britain has grown by more than 2,750,000. Between 1983 and 1987, our rate of job growth was more than three times the average for the rest of the European Community and our growth in jobs nearly equalled that of the whole of the rest of the Community.
As a result, unemployment has fallen every month for more than three years; since the last general election, it has fallen by over 1,250,000, and long-term unemployment has fallen by 682,000. We do not say that that is enough, and that makes my point in this debate. We want to see the improvement sustained and to see it spread to every part of the country. Compared with the rest of the Community, we have nothing to apologise for. Our unemployment rate of about 6 per cent. is substantially below the average for the rest of the European Community, where the rate now stands at about 9 per cent. Britain has a lower rate of unemployment than France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark, and it is certainly lower than the rate in Spain, Ireland and Greece. The central point is that that has been achieved not by adding to restrictions, but by a policy of sweeping away unnecessary restrictions and regulations.
One lesson that we have learnt is that businesses create jobs. They cannot be created by regulations, and that has been established over the last few years. There is no doubt that no one in the Commission, least of all Commissioner Papandreou, believes or claims that the policies in the charter will create jobs. When Commissioner Papandreou

gave evidence to the Select Committee on Employment on 17 October, she acknowledged that the charter would have "negative effects" which would
increase the cost of production".
She said:
there is no doubt about that".
Increasing costs inevitably damages employment prospects. The only question that Commissioner Papandreou left unanswered is the number of jobs that the charter will destroy. It is not a question of whether jobs will go but how many.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Secretary of State compared our unemployment rate with the rates in other European countries. Will he tell us the basis on which that comparison was made so that we can see whether his comparison is favourable? How many of the countries that he quoted have changed their way of collating unemployment statistics 19 times as we have done, to the extent that we do not know the true rate of unemployment?

Mr. Fowler: There is a recognised European comparison for unemployment. There is no question but that it represents the best comparison that is known of the unemployment rates of the countries in the Community. I have never heard that challenged. It is not a matter of looking at national figures and comparing unlike with unlike. The purpose is to try to bring them together and have a Euro-figure so that a good comparison can be made.

Mr. Batiste: rose—

Mr. Fowler: I give way to my hon. Friend, to whom I should have given way earlier.

Mr. Batiste: Can my right hon. Friend confirm at this early stage an important point? Are the Government opposed in principle to the concept of a social charter, or to some of the provisions in the current draft?

Mr. Fowler: I am glad to do that. I am not opposed in principle to a social charter, and I shall make that clear. However, I am opposed, and the Government are opposed, to the social charter as it stands, because the effect and impact of its proposals are likely, even certain, to lead to job losses when the whole purpose of policy should be to try to create employment.

Mr. Tony Blair: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fowler: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to continue, as he has an opportunity to reply directly after me?

Mr. Ron Leighton: I am certain that the Secretary of State does not want to mislead the House. Mrs. Papandreou did not say that the social charter would destroy jobs. She said that there was no evidence that it would destroy or create jobs. She admitted that there might be some increase in costs, for example as with health and safety provisions. She referred to the West German economy, which has the highest possible standards and is the most efficient possible. That is a fair summing up of what she said.

Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman checks what I said, he will see that that is precisely how I described it. I have


the benefit of having listened to Commissioner Papandreou set out her case on this not just before the Select Committee but in Council meeting after Council meeting. There is nothing between us when she says that the social charter as it now stands will add to labour costs.

Mr. Blair: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fowler: I should prefer to continue with my speech. You have asked for short speeches, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to give one. However, I shall give way if the hon. Gentleman insists.

Mr. Blair: I must insist. The right hon. Gentleman has repeated the allegation that Mrs. Papandreou has accepted that the social charter will put up costs. Let me correct him, becase I have her evidence here. She said that some of the proposals might put up costs and some might make them more effective. Overall, she said:
I do not think that the implementation of the Charter is going to have negative effects on job creation.
It is only the Government who think that fair employment practices and job creation are mutually inconsistent.

Mr. Fowler: If that is remotely her view, that represents a substantial change from the position that she has taken before. The hon. Gentleman must understand that not only have I read her evidence, but I have listened to her in many Council meetings which the hon. Gentleman has not attended. If he listens, he might understand what she is saying. She is saying what the proponents of the charter have been saying, which is that it will have a tendency to put up labour costs.

Mr. Blair: I rise because the Secretary of State must not continue to misrepresent Mrs. Papandreou. We are interested not in his interpretation of what she said, but what she actually said, which is down on the record. What she said is that it would not have a negative impact on job creation.

Mr. Fowler: I do not accept that. Neither do I accept —nor does any independent person or newspaper leader writer who has looked at this position—that this will reduce labour costs. It will increase labour costs and the impact and effect of that will be to increase unemployment.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Irrespective of what Mrs. Papandreou said or did not say, it is not the case that whether we vote for or against the social charter and whether the European Council votes for or against it, the European Commission is fully empowered to present to the Council of Ministers, under a majority vote, the full range of directives outlining the social charter, as it said on 22 October and as the Prime Minister confirmed on 26 July? What is the point of having this debate and vote?

Mr. Fowler: I shall direct myself to the point of the debate, certainly.
If my hon. Friend is saying that, irrespective of what decision is made on the charter, the Commission will have the power to bring forward directives and proposals, that is unanswerably the fact, but that does not invalidate the case for having a debate on the charter. Instead, it puts the entire issue in the context of the charter.
Even if we disagree about Commissioner Papandreou's view, I hope that we shall not disagree about the views of

British business organisations such as the CBI, the chambers of commerce and the Institute of Directors. These organisations know substantially more about creating jobs than do Opposition Members. At its conference last week, the CBI came out solidly against the proposals that are set out in the social charter. The CBI is the largest, the best and the most powerful organisation of its sort in Britain.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Fowler: I shall not give way again. I apologise to my hon. Friend.
There are those who argue that the social charter as it stands is nothing more than a harmless declaration of aims. There are at least three reasons why that is not so. First, the charter is intended as a basis for action. It is accompanied by an action programme, and an ambitious one at that. It consists of 43 Community instruments, including 17 legally binding directives. The Commission's aim is for all these directives to be represented for agreement by the end of 1992. The action programme includes directives on hours of work and night work, holidays and rest periods, and part-time and temporary employment.
Secondly, the issues in the action programme are what the Commission proposes action on immediately. There are other issues on which directives are not proposed this day—I take the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) to some extent—but which are accepted as desirable objectives. These are issues such as minimum wages and compulsory schemes of worker participation. There are aims, therefore, with which we do not agree. We can accept general health and safety regulations and regulations covering other areas to which I shall come. If the aim, however, is to reduce unemployment, it is nonsense to sign up to measures that we all know will add to labour costs and will discourage and not encourage employment.
Thirdly, the effect of our accepting the charter as it stands would be to concede that the Community has competence to deal with these subjects and that it should take action in any event. That runs entirely counter to the principle of subsidiarity to which all Heads of Government subscribed at the Madrid summit. I am delighted that subsidiarity is now in the preamble. My complaint, however, is that that is not followed through. Subjects such as holidays and hours of work should not be regulated from Brussels. They are areas in which domestic decisions are the best way of proceeding.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Fowler: I shall not give way.
One of the most positive developments of the 1980s has been the move to more flexible patterns of work. In many instances these are exactly what are needed in the sectors of growing employment. Even more important is the fact that more and more people want to work part time or at home, or for short periods, so that they can both do a job and look after a family. Surveys have shown that the majority of part time workers want to work part time. If employers are to draw more people into the labour market, they must be prepared to offer flexible patterns of work.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My right hon. Friend makes the point that I was trying to make. It is extremely important, particularly for women, that hours should be flexible, and that is something which Britain has achieved but which the continent has not achieved so well.

Mr. Fowler: That is exactly the point.
It is ridiculous and patronising for the Commission to describe the 6 million people in Britain who work part time as "atypical". That is the term used to describe part-time workers in the action programme. It is time for the Commission to wake up to the fact that, as my hon. Friend has just said, we are no longer living in a world where everyone works full time in a factory or office or when everyone starts work at the same time and goes home at the same time. When Commissioner Papandreou says that she does not believe that women want to work part time, she is denying the evidence of survey after survey in Britain.

Mr. Blair: The right hon. Gentleman alleges that the Commissioner responsible for people working part time says that people do not want to work part time. Where did she make that statement?

Mr. Fowler: She made it at the last Social Affairs Council. She suggested that that was not the wish of the vast majority of women in Britain. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to check with Commissioner Papandreou on that, I am perfectly happy that he should do so. But irrespective of whether that is the case—

Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Fowler: I will not give way again. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We shall make little progress if hon. Members persist in raising points when the Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Fowler: The social charter does not pay attention to the requirements that exist for part-time work and the proper importance that should be placed on part-time work in Britain.

Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Fowler: I will not give way.
What we do not want is a social charter that imposes on the rest of the Community a single blueprint based on arrangements that have been developed in one country.
Let us consider employee involvement. We believe strongly in the principle of employee involvement. Our disagreement with what the charter says on that issue does not mean that we are opposed to making progress on employee involvement—quite the contrary. We have recently set out what is happening in Britain in a document that we have published which I know has been well studied by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). We want to see those approaches carried forward and extended. That is why we will continue to resist attempts to impose on Britain forms of worker participation based on models that have been developed in other countries. We have no wish to impose our traditions on other member states, but we see no reason why their traditions should be imposed on Britain.
Above all, we do not want to see a set of regulations that will destroy jobs. If we are to create new jobs and reduce unemployment right across Europe—that, surely, must be the aim—the last thing that Europe needs is more

rules and regulations. We remain consistent in wanting to see employment increase; we want to see sustained growth in the economics of Europe, not a damaging flood of new regulations and restrictions.
I support the EC and I have campaigned and consistently voted for it. The emphasis of the charter is not, as it should be, on job creation. The whole philosophy of the charter is static, not dynamic. It is preoccupied with regulating the working lives of people already in employment. It ignores the interests of those who have no job. The social charter, at least in its present form, is a recipe for job stagnation, not for job growth.

Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that such matters can satisfactorily be negotiated between the member states? We can be guided by the more relaxed attitude of West Germany, say—which is the premier capitalist economy of Europe, having a coalition Government led by the German equivalent of the Conservative party that seems to be more enthusiastic about such matters than we are. How do the West Germans cope when we find it so difficult?

Mr. Fowler: I hope that progress can be made, for I am not seeking to deny that possibility. In a whole range of areas, such as health and safety, cross-qualifications between one country and another and other elements of co-operation that enable the Community to function are sensible. However, it is not sensible to seek to introduce regulations and directives in respect of matters that should be the subject of decisions taken at a domestic level. Areas such as hours of work, minimum pay and minimum holidays should properly be the subject of domestic decision-taking.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) deceives himself if he believes that West Germany is driven simply and solely by a concept of social justice. West Germany is concerned about the concept of social dumping, fearing that people will enter Germany and work there under conditions that do not equate with the high wages and standard of conditions enjoyed by German workers. That is not how Germany created its economic miracle, but it is Germany's intention now to avoid social dumping.
The social charter raises issues for the future direction of the European Community. The most serious of them is whether the Community will seize the opportunity of the single market to strengthen the economies of Europe and to bring down barriers to future growth or will become preoccupied with the detailed regulation of the lives of its citizens and with imposing new restrictions on business. Will the Community look outwards and prepare itself to compete with the new, fast-growing economies of the far east and Pacific, or will it turn in on itself?
It will be a terrible irony if just when eastern Europe is breaking free from decades of bureaucratic regulation, the European Community turns in on itself and stifles the growth of business and jobs under a flood of new controls from Brussels. The single market represents an enormous opportunity for Europe to move forward and to become economically strong enough to play a major part in shaping the world of the 21st century. The greatest and most terrible irony would be if a set of proposals labelled "social charter" succeeded in destroying jobs, not creating them.
We believe in a social dimension for the European Community—of that there is no doubt. However, we believe also that that social dimension is about bringing down unemployment and creating jobs. We support all sensible measures to achieve that, and the Government's record shows that they have been successful in achieving that objective. The challenge inside the European Community is undoubted, for 14 million of its people are still unemployed. Nevertheless, I do not believe that the social charter as it stands achieves the great objective of creating jobs and reducing unemployment.

Mr. Tony Blair: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'calls upon the Government to accept and endorse the Draft Community Charter of Fundamental Social Rights.'.
Our case is that the Government should endorse the social charter at the Strasbourg summit in December as that would represent an important first step for greater rights for employees within the European Community. The social charter is an indispensable part of securing the consent of the people of the Community to the wide-ranging changes introduced by 1992 and the single European market.
Our case against the Government is epitomised by the speech of the Secretary of State. The Government's refusal to countenance the basic social rights in the charter severely undermines the interests of British employees, and the irrational conduct and bad faith that characterises our isolation in Europe profoundly damage Britain's interests abroad. By their opposition to the social charter, far from assisting job creation, the Government will harm the long-term prospects for British employment.
The essential difference between ourselves and the Government is that they believe that fair employment practice and job creation are inconsistent and we believe that they go together.
As contempt for the Government's position grows in Europe and elsewhere, there has been some attempt to shift tactics. Today, the Secretary of State told us that it is all just a reasoned dispute about detail, and that a different social charter might be agreed to or even welcomed. That is simply so much humbug. The true reaction of the Prime Minister and thus, inevitably, of the Secretary of State, was her first reaction.
The draft social charter was barely in print before the Prime Minister granted an exclusive interview to the Daily Mail in May. She said that
the social charter was a throwback to a Marxist period, a class struggle period".
On the same day, in Prime Minister's Question Time, she went out of her way to condemn the social charter as
more like a Socialist charter."—[Official Report, 18 May 1989; Vol. 153, c. 474.]
We all know that there is no more profoundly meant insult in the Prime Minister's vocabulary.
The Secretary of State, the Prime Minister's ever-eager echo, said at a press conference on 21 June that the social charter was full of Socialist measures, stating:
We do not believe then that the so-called social charter is sensible or necessary.
His Minister of State backed him up in a reply on 28 July:

The Government have made it clear that they see no point in the Commission's proposals for a Communitywide social charter."—[Official Report, 28 July 1989; Vol. 157, c. 1049.]
He was referring not to this social charter but to a "Communitywide social charter".
Finally, the Minister of State said in a press release on 18 October:
It is no secret that the United Kingdom Government have considerable reservations about the whole concept of a social charter.

Mr. Ian Taylor: The hon. Gentleman must clarify to the House which version of the social charter he is criticising. He will be well aware that we are now into the third draft. The first draft contained an enormous amount of Socialist nonsense. Given that that has gone, can he reasonably accept the third draft?

Mr. Blair: In that case, we would assume that the Government would be rowing in support of the existing social charter, but they are still opposing it.

Mr. Batiste: Does the Labour party accept the principle of subsidiarity, and if it does, where does he draw the border line between that which should be determined in Britain and that which should be determined in Europe in the context of the current draft of the social charter?

Mr. Blair: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, the principle of subsidiarity is set out quite clearly in the social charter. It is simple, plain common sense that there will be different spheres of influence between national Governments and European institutions. Only the Conservative party cannot understand that.
All that has happened between the Government's original position and now, when they attempt to present a gentler and kinder face, is that, in view of the growing astonishment and incredulity of the international community towards their hostility to any declaration of basic social rights, the Government have been driven to pretend that a divergence of principle is really only a difference over detail.
What are the rights which they oppose in the social charter? They are: freedom of movement, decent and fair pay for employees, freedom of association, a right to vocational training, equal treatment for men and women, rights for workers to be consulted and informed and to participate in the decisions affecting them, health and safety at work, protecting children against exploitation and proper regard—

Mr. Fowler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blair: In a moment—proper regard for the elderly and the disabled—

Mr. Fowler: rose—

Mr. Blair: These are the principles—

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman accused me of having misrepresented the position. He has now knowingly and entirely wilfully misrepresented the position. As he must have heard me say, the Government do not oppose measures relating to health and safety and a whole range of other issues. We are not opposed to the recognition of qualifications, or to the free movement of labour and equal opportunities. We should like many of those rights to be properly observed. Before the hon. Gentleman accuses me


of misleading anybody, I hope that at least he will take on board exactly what is the Government's position. This is not the first time that it has been set out.

Mr. Blair: What I find interesting are the rights that the right hon. Gentleman has not endorsed: the rights of the elderly, the right to freedom of association and other rights. No wonder the rest of the European Community is aghast at our attitude. The charter could be adopted almost verbatim not merely by western Europe but by the millions who are struggling for freedom in eastern Europe. If they did, the Prime Minister would be the first to stand up and ask for support for the social charter.

Mr. Roger Gale: On the right to freedom of association, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blair: No.
Let us consider the right to vocational training:
Every European Community worker must have the opportunity to continue his vocational training throughout his working life. The public authorities, enterprises or, where appropriate, the two sides of industry, each within their own sphere of competence, must set up continuing and permanent training systems enabling every citizen to undergo retraining, more especially through leave for training purposes, to improve his skills or acquire new skills".
That is the type of right that we are denied. Why should our employees be denied a right that is given to our competitors? How foolish to deny, by the Government's obstinacy, the very tools that would allow us to compete more effectively.
The Government say that the social charter will cost jobs. By implication, therefore, they assume that West Germany and all our other European Community partners which support the social charter are feckless enough to support it, even though it will cost jobs.
As for the right to training, is it West Germany, with its £9·2 billion trading surplus with Britain, which needs the right to training? Is it Italy—with its £2 billion trading surplus with Britain—that requires the right to training? Is it France with a £1·6 billion surplus, the Netherlands with a £4 billion surplus, Denmark with almost a £1 billion surplus and Belgium and Luxembourg combined with their £1 billion trading surplus with Britain that are most in need of the right to training? It is Britain, the country that needs the right to training most, that is almost alone in resisting it for its employees.
That is why the Government's position is so irrational. That is why, elsewhere in Europe, the social charter has so much support, from the Conservative Administrations of West Germany and Belgium to the Socialist Administrations of France and Spain. That is why Mr. Kohl, that great Marxist, has welcomed it and has also called for legally binding minimum social standards across the Community. That is why West German employers and trade unions have just issued a joint statement in these terms:
They urge"—
they do not merely support—
a Community-wide formulation of minimum social standards and workers' rights on the basis of the treaties founding the European Communities.
That is why Professor Becker, the president of the European Round Table and head of the 50 or so largest European companies, has gone out of his way to welcome the European company statute on staff representation.
That is why Mrs. Maij-Weggen, the Dutch leader of the European Christian Democrats, spoke in these terms in the European Parliament on 13 September:
We must believe that this must not be simply a solemn declaration—and here we agree with the Socialists—but it must go hand in hand with a concrete programme of action.
She went on to say:
Mr. President, I agree with Mr. Ford"—
the Labour leader—
when he criticises Mrs. Thatcher so severely. Mrs. Thatcher does not want a social Europe but she has clearly lost the elections and a sensible politician must change policy when elections are lost.
There speaks someone who is clearly not a very perceptive student of the Prime Minister's psychology.

Mr. Timothy Raison: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us the Labour party's view of one right in the charter—the right concerning professional organisations and trade unions:
Every employer and every worker shall have the freedom to join or not to join such organisations without any personal or occupational damage being thereby suffered by him"?
That would put an end to the closed shop. Is that the Labour party's position?

Mr. Blair: If it has that meaning, it also has the meaning that one has a right to be a member of a trade union. How the Government would justify their position on GCHQ, I do not know—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I can tell hon. Members that we shall have every opportunity to debate the matter when the Employment Bill is before the House. That is why the leader of the Christian Democrats said in the European Parliament—

Mr. Fowler: Does that mean that, if we meet the requirements that the hon. Gentleman has outlined, he will support the abolition of the pre-entry closed shop?

Mr. Blair: I will take lessons from the right hon. Gentleman on the pre-entry closed shop when he is prepared to restore rights to trade unionists at GCHQ.

Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely the hon. Gentleman is speaking as an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, not as a lawyer. We should be entitled—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Bogus points of order do not help us to make progress.

Mr. Blair: That is why—

Mr. James Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blair: No, I shall not.
That is why the programme has been supported by all those people.

Mr. Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blair: No, I am not giving way.
That is why such a programme was called for—

Mr. Wallace: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I need to hear the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). I hope that hon. Members will allow me to do so.

Mr. Blair: If I may say so, I have given way a darn sight more than the Secretary of State.

Mr. Fowler: Oh!

Mr. Blair: That is why such a programme was called for not only by all the bodies to which I referred but by the economic and social committee of the Community, by a majority of 135 to 22, earlier this year. Which were the main components of the 22 in opposition? They were the United Kingdom and the wing of the French trade union movement dominated by pre-Gorbachev unreconstructed Communists—the ancient relics of Right and Left locked in an embrace of mutual irrelevance.
That, then, is the declaration of rights that we are resisting, and that is the vast body of opinion that we are alienating—not merely by the fact of our opposition to the social charter but by the manner of it. The document has been subject to a campaign by the Department of Employment—I say this advisedly—of such scurrilous misinformation that Orwell's Ministry of Truth, or perhaps even the chairman of the Tory party, whichever may be worse, could have learnt from it. We have been told that the charter would interfere with our rights as a sovereign nation. We were told that it would cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs and would be the ruin of British industry. Hardly a day has gone by without a fresh hue and cry being raised against the charter by the Department of Employment.
The campaign culminated in a briefing by the Department on 3 November, which was given widespread publicity in the newspapers on 4 November. The Daily Telegraph covered the matter in detail and the point was repeated subsequently in ministerial speeches. It was not simply an allegation about the social charter in general terms, it was very specific. Under the headline
Social Charter threatens jobs of under-18s",
the article stated:
Paper rounds and evening performances of shows involving children will be threatened by a ban on night work for under 18s in the Common Market Social Charter the Employment Department said yesterday… This would rule out jobs for most of Britain's 300,000 paper boys and girls and present serious obstacles to the delivery of newspapers. It would also put an end to Saturday jobs held by thousands of school children.
It would seem that the evil social charter is not simply unkind to young boys and girls, but will stop our morning papers. We can only imagine what "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" wrote about that.

Mr. David Shaw: It is very serious.

Mr. Blair: Exactly. That is why I checked the position with the Commission. The Commission said that four meetings were held about the charter before 30 October —before the newspaper articles appeared based on the Department of Employment briefing. United Kingdom officials attended those meetings and the point about newspaper deliveries was raised at one of them. The Commission specifically and in terms told Ministry officials that it is was no part of the Commission's plan to limit such work. The scare had no validity. However, a week later the Department of Employment briefing appeared—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Blair: I believe that the Government's bad faith should be explored.
Even more extraordinary than the article in the Daily Telegraph was the speech by the Minister of State in the House on 15 November. He made a series of allegations about the social charter, most of which were complete nonsense. However, he made a particular allegation about Mrs. Papandreou which I want to raise with him. I will give way to the Minister of State if he can explain what he said. He said:
What does the charter mean to British people? Mrs Papandreou said in London that she"—
then he purports to quote—
cannot believe that people would choose part-time work: In other words, she does not think that there is any value in part-time work."—[Official Report, 15 November 1989; Vol. 160, c. 445.]
I do not know where that quote comes from. I cannot find it in any of Mrs. Papandreou's speeches. The very matter was raised in the Select Committee on Employment by a Conservative Member who put it to Mrs. Papandreou that she might be against part-time work and she replied:
First of all, in principle I am not against part-time work. On the contrary, I think if workers have the luxury—because sometimes it is a luxury—to choose between full-time and part-time and they opt for part-time then it is up to them. What I am against is when part-time work is imposed on workers.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Tim Eggar): Of course, Mrs. Papandreou went on to say:
I do not know, and I find it very difficult to agree, that nine out of 10 women would like to have part-time work if they had the opportunity to have full-time work.
I must tell the hon. Gentleman, as I told the Commission, that we have conducted a survey into that and the result was absolutely clear: nine out of the 10 part-time workers wanted to work part-time rather than full-time. Six million people in this country want to work part-time. Is the Labour party against those people? Would Labour rather they did not work part-time?

Mr. Blair: That was quite pathetic. The idea that the Minister's quote justifies his saying that Mrs. Papandreou does not believe that there is any value in part-time work is ridiculous.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blair: Furthermore, the Minister has not told us where Mrs. Papandreou is alleged to have said that she cannot believe that people would choose part-time work. Instead of trying to justify what is plainly an unjustifiable allegation against her, he should apologise for misrepresenting her on the basis of something for which there is no evidence in the Select Committee report.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must not persist when the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is clearly not giving way.

Mr. Blair: rose—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Lady heard me the first time. I hope that she will not persist in seeking to intervene when the hon. Gentleman clearly is not giving way.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No point of order can arise on
that.

Mr. Blair: This serious—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr.Deputy Speaker. I was trying to point out that I was a member of the European committee on social affairs which discussed—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. I regret that the hon. Lady seeks to make her intervention under the guise of a bogus point of order. I hope that she will not persist.

Mr. Blair: The series of trumped-up allegations over a period of time by the Department of Employment is important. It shows the rank bad faith that characterises the Government's attitude to our EC partners. It also shows that the Government are forced to put false interpretations on the social charter and what it means.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on this point?

Mr. Blair: I appreciate the desire of Conservative Members not to debate this subject properly. However, I believe that people outside this place would like us to debate it properly.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I very much hope that the hon. Lady the Member for Doncaster will not persist.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have given me your constituency.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I said Lancaster.

Mr. Blair: No, you said Doncaster.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise both to the hon. Lady and to myself.

Mr. Blair: The Government are forced to put false interpretations on the social charter because they know that if people realised the truth, they might begin to ask why they cannot have the rights in it. They might ask why there is no right guaranteeing freedom of association and the protection of the low-paid and part-time workers. They might ask why no rights apply to children, the elderly and to training. In reality, the arguments about the detail of the charter are a smokescreen to conceal a rejection of its basic principles.
The Government are not against the present version of the social charter. They are in truth against any version which will lead to practical legislation to enforce basic minimum standards for employees throughout the Community.

Mr. Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on the point about freedom of association?

Mr. Blair: No.
The Government have always opposed legislation that advances employees' rights in Europe or here just as they opposed the directives on consultation of workers in large multinationals and on part-time workers' rights. They oppose it just as they opposed rights for casual or temporary workers, the reorganisation of working times and the directive on parental leave. The Government have

also dragged their feet on every item of sex discrimination and equal pay legislation to come from the Community. They oppose those rights just as in June—as ever, alone—they opposed a proposal to establish a common poverty line for the Community to allow us to gauge the performance of member states in meeting the needs of our poorest citizens.
Just as they have opposed social progress in Brussels, the Government have opposed and thwarted it here in Westminster by abolishing the wages councils for young workers, restricting rights to claim unfair dismissal, removing safeguards on working hours, cutting the staff of the Health and Safety Executive and having one of the worst records on pensions and parental leave anywhere in the Community. That is the real reason for their opposition to the social charter. It is not merely their hysterical dislike of anything that is the product of co-operation rather than conflict between nations, and not simply because they are against social progress made in Brussels rather than in Westminster. They are against anything, whether here or abroad, that stands up for the rights and interests of people in Europe against the vested interests of wealth and power.
The Opposition believe in the social charter because it is just and fair. We believe in it because a just and fair Community will also be efficient. An internal market that is a free-for-all will lead, as markets that are unchecked and unbalanced by the public interest always have led, to greed, disorder and sometimes even chaos.
What about the arguments that the social charter will put people out of work, drive up industry's costs and mean unnecessary bureaucracy? Those have been the rallying cries of reactionaries against any form of social progress,from the legislation that stopped sending children down the mines to the present day, when a new world, East and West, opens up new challenges and opportunities. It is the ultimate vice of the Government that they are now so consumed by prejudice as to be opaque to reason. They cannot see that prosperity will no be built on injustice, that progress cannot be measured by short-term profit alone and that the rights of those who create the wealth should not be subservient to the market in which they created it. On that basis, the Opposition will divide the House tonight, confident of the support not merely of our colleagues in Europe but, increasingly, of the British people.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the first Back-Bench Member, I remind the House that this is a short debate and that short speeches will reduce the number of disappointments.

Mr. Ian Taylor: The problems that the Labour party has got itself into on this issue were admirably encapsulated in the speech by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). He has clearly insufficiently read the latest and earlier drafts of the social charter. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has pointed out, there are bits in it that the hon. Gentleman would not like. Clause 11 of the latest draft states:
Every employer and every worker shall have the freedom to join or not to join such organisations (trade unions) without any personal or occupational damage being thereby suffered by him.


On some interpretations, that would not only prevent a closed shop but would go much further than the legislation which has been envisaged by the Government. By way of intervention, my right hon. Friend said that, in effect, that means that the hon. Member will have to lead the Labour party into the Aye Lobby when the legislation to prevent the pre-entry closed shop comes before the House.
We cannot take lectures from Opposition Members, who were recently against the European Community concept of what should be the rights of people within the Community. It is self-evident nonsense that the Labour party, which is not certain even now of its conversion to the European cause, should hypocritically try to use some piece of legislation emanating from Brussels to cover the holes in its own policy as a result of attempting for years to fudge what it is trying to put forward, which is a regulation which would throttle British industry and deny British people jobs. The Labour party has a policy for unemployment, and that fact was laid bare this afternoon.
I shall make a few positive remarks about progress in the social dimension of the Community. About 90 per cent. of the 280 measures that the White Paper set forth as necessary to achieve the internal market have either reached the stage of negotiation or are already implemented. Therefore, the development of the internal market is already at an advanced stage. It is not surprising that many people in the Community believe that now the other part of the Single European Act—that is, that relating to the social dimension—should be looked at and fleshed out. It is interesting that much of the pressure for a social dimension to be given detail has come not just from the Commission but from member Governments and Ministers in Council.
My only mild criticism of the British Government in this context is that, knowing that we have such a good record in the social dimension, knowing that we have created more jobs than others in the Community have, and knowing that we have done it through deregulation, we should have taken the initiative earlier and put forward our own social charter rather than be forced now to nitpick about some of the measures in the draft social charter which came from a Greek Commissioner. That is unfortunate because we are effectively playing on someone else's playing field. We should learn a lesson from that weakness and not repeat it in future.
Labour Members were anxious to accept the first draft which contained many restrictive measures which would have created unemployment. They had an almost overwhelming desire to see institutionalised in Brussels the beer-and-sandwiches brigade upon which they fondly look back. I wish the nation to realise that the Labour party is attempting to support the social charter for reasons that are not in the best interests of employment in this country.

Mr. William Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in respect of technical change, there is now a movement against the less skilled worker? Therefore, the iniquity of the Opposition's position is that they are condemning people in the less developed parts of the Community to a lower wage structure and, at the same time, condemning those in our country who are in a similar position as a result of the Labour Government's failure to do anything.

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. There should never be an agreement to any element of the social charter which would allow the high social costs in certain northern European countries to be spread throughout the Community, because that would have a damaging effect on employment and on certain regions of this country. No support that I give to the social charter would justify that aspect of it.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Is it a fact that the Government are opposed to the social charter because they see the destiny of this country as a cheapjack, low-wage, low-tax, deregulated Trojan horse for entry into the EEC?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has only to talk to one or two German business men about that. They are particularly concerned about their own protection. They realise that their social costs are high.
Inward investment in British industry has been dramatic under this Government, and that shows the strength of British manufacturing.
The importance of the advance of the internal market is that it is perfectly proper that workers' rights to circulate freely in the Community should lead to the expectation of similar treatment for themselves and their families as that of the people of the country in which they choose to work. That is an admirable objective for the single market and the freedom of movement which this country has strongly supported.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Taylor: Hon. Members have been urged by Mr. Deputy Speaker to keep their speeches as short as possible. Given that my hon. Friend is my namesake, of course I will give way.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: As the decent wage directive will not be an equal European decent wage or minimum wage, but will take account of the varying costs in each member state, who will decide what is a decent wage in each member state? Will the European Court or the Commission decide, or will the matter be left to each country?

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is less than his usual accurate self, which shows that he has not looked at the latest draft of the social charter, or at the Commission's statement on the action programme. That statement clearly shows that member states will decide the definitions, with the Community merely setting a framework—

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Utter rubbish.

Mr. Taylor: It is not utter rubbish. My hon. Friend should read the document, where he will find that plainly stated.
Because of the Government's successful efforts, the third draft makes significant advances and due credit should be given to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The draft is close to being acceptable to the Conservative party. It contains a clear statement on subsidiarity—the fact that the Community should operate at the lowest appropriate level. The draft and the statement on the action programme show respect for the plurality of cultures. The Commission will be bound by existing powers and there will be no extension of those


powers. The draft stresses job creation, a point that came out of the Madrid summit. It leaves member Governments to define the minima that the Commission believes to be desirable.
There is no imposition of any rigid worker participation formula, which is especially welcome given the Government's efforts to encourage employee share ownership. Indeed, the statement on the action programme clearly states:
Worker participation in company profits and share acquisition will also be the subject of a proposal for a Community instrument.
That is a major move forward, which will gain further recognition as the discussions continue. There is now no question that British companies will need to adopt the form of worker participation at board level that is the case with German companies. When the European company statute draft is adjusted, they will not need to adopt that policy even if they opt for European company status.
Many aspects of the draft are acceptable to the Conservative party. Contrary to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Sedgefield, certain elements of the draft social charter have always been acceptable to Conservatives. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said:
In support of the single market programme, we do need some general principles for the labour market: the free movement of labour; health and safety at work; equal treatment in employment for men and women, and avoidance of discrimination; improvements in training, and a system of qualifications which permits recognition of competence; freedom for nationals of member states to set up and manage undertakings anywhere in the Community.
That is a long list of measures, to which the Government have always put their name. There is no opposition to the concept of a social charter in that context.
I hope that we can make further progress before the Strasbourg summit. The Conservative party has a proud record of social reform. During the past 150 years we have initiated changes and improvements in the working conditions of British people. Sometimes we have done that, because of the circumstances of the day, by introducing regulations; sometimes we have done it by freeing the market to create jobs, as has been evidenced during the past decade. No one, and certainly not the Opposition, could point a finger at the Conservative party and say that it does not have a social conscience.
We are not prepared to prostitute ourselves for the sake of some form of social charter, regardless of what is contains. That is why the Government have forcefully objected to certain aspects of it and why they have argued that aspects that would destroy jobs should be removed. Despite what the media have suggested, there is no doubt that our European colleagues have listened to us, and the third draft recognises many of our points.
I hope that there will be some change during the coming weeks so that, at the Strasbourg summit, the Government can willingly sign a social charter that symbolises the fact that there is a social element within the internal market. I hope that that will be only the beginning. There are many areas within the Community where there could be further declarations.
We must never forget that even the current draft refers to the two sides of industry. That is an antiquated view. If we include young children, more than 50 per cent. of the people in the Community do not work, let alone belong to a trade union. The membership of trade unions is declining. We need to adapt and embrace ideas that understand new technology, new working practices and

the changing demography of Europe during the next 10 years. We need to adapt social criteria to environmental considerations. We need closely to consider effects on the family. We need to understand the social dimension for consumers. Those matters are justifiably discussed at Community level because they affect the working of the internal market throughout the Community. We strongly believe in and have been the prime force behind the creation of that internal market.
If we can do all those things, we can be positive about the meaning of a social charter and understand that it is not just about job creation but is intended to enable people in many countries within the Community to have something to which they can aspire, to give there confidence, to improve their performance at work, to improve their productivity and to improve the way that society itself creates stability. Those criteria are important at the Community level. The transmission of those broad objectives into legislation should, as the latest draft shows, be on the principle of subsidiarity and carried out in accordance with the traditions and cultures of the nation states so that all are acting to a common programme, but interpreting it each in his own way. That is a noble objective.
I hope that the Government will continue the fight arid that their success at Strasbourg will be signalled by their signing of an acceptable further revised draft of the social charter.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Why should there be a social charter, and what is its origin and purpose? It was thought necessary to offer it as an accompaniment to the single market. The single internal market is the business man's Europe, removing all restrictions on the movement of capital and goods. That will not be a benign development which will benefit all; it will be an area of fierce competition in which there will be winners and losers. Industry will be rationalised and restructured; there will be mergers, closures and redundancies. It is freedom for capital, tailormade for the multinationals.
We all recognise what is in that for big business, but what about the working people? To prevent the trade unions from opposing that development and to keep them on board, it was felt necessary to offer them a social dimension that would, allegedly, accompany the economic dimension. It was claimed that the two would go hand in hand. The charter was intended to reassure workers that their employment rights and conditions would not be undermined—at least, that is the story and the propaganda. However, once we examine it more closely the social charter appears less substantial and becomes something of a mirage.
The actual document is, of course, replete with grandiloquent declarations and high-flown aspirations. There is much talk of social consensus, of social rights, of employment being fairly remunerated, of improved working and living conditions, of adequate levels of social security, of the elderly having adequate means of subsistence, and of a minimum income. It talks of the right to belong to a union and the right to collective bargaining. It mentions the equality of men and women and refers to the right of workers to information, consultation and participation. There is much else, and the only thing


missing is that which is of the essence—any mechanism or machinery to implement it. Instead, in every case there are get-outs and escape clauses. While the business man's Europe is being realised, I fear that the so-called people's Europe, the social Europe and the charter are no more than a smokescreen of verbiage.
As has been said, on 17 October—the day Parliament re-assembled—the Select Committee on Employment took evidence from Mrs. Vasso Papandreou, the European Commissioner responsible for the charter, to examine these matters in detail and establish the facts. It transpired that the social charter is based very largely on that of the Council of Europe. Asked how many of the member states had ratified it, she replied:
not one of the member states has ratified all the conventions".
So that was not a very hopeful start.
The EC social charter is full of phrases like social rights
must be assured at appropriate levels",
without saying what they are, and
according to the circumstances within the member states or their constituent parts".
Mrs. Papandreou told us:
In the particular articles in the Charter there are always references to national law, collective agreements, even to practices which exist or are in force in the Member States, so we are not intending to impose a unified system in the Community".
So the charter is pretty anodyne and toothless. She also told us:
We are not going to propose directives, regulations or recommendations for all the issues in the Charter".
So what is going to happen? We looked at some of the detail. First, we looked at the concept of a minimum wage, minimum income, and a "decent wage", because the charter refers to these. Indeed, because it refers to them, some people naively think that the charter will assure them throughout the Community. Unfortunately, that is not so.
Pressed on this, Mrs. Papandreou said:
What is decent? It is different in Member States, it is even different within a Member State from region to region. We are not going to propose or decide what is not decent. It is up to Member States, up to the social partners either at national or local level, regional or industrial level, to decide what is a decent wage … in no way are we going to say in quantitative terms what is a decent wage.
She even went on to say:
So it is not up to us, even in qualitative terms, to say what is decent for the Member States.
So much then for the minimum or decent wage. We will not get it from the social charter, that is clear.
What is the truth about the right to join a trade union? Some weeks ago I heard Glyn Ford, leader of the Labour Members of the European Parliament, say on the radio that the social charter would guarantee workers at Government communications headquarters the right to join a trade union. Again, unfortunately, that is not so.
Mrs. Papandreou made it clear that workers could join only unions that were what are called, "legally constituted" and that where member states disallowed or banned unions, they were not "legally constituted" and the charter would not affect that. She was asked:
So legally constituted basically means depending on what the law of that particular Member State is?
She replied:
Yes. This applies to the Armed Forces and the police. Not only that, in some Member States others are not allowed to form unions.

And of course, in this member state, among the "others" are the workers at GCHQ. The charter would give them no rights whatsoever.
The section on rights of workers to information, consultation and participation has now been watered down so much as to be meaningless. It talks of this being done in "due time", and
in such a way as to take into account the laws, collective agreements and practices in force in the member states.
In other words, it would leave things as they are.
Finally, the all-important thing is how any of this is to be implemented. Recently, the vice-president of the Commission, our former colleague Sir Leon Brittan, gave a lecture to the Institute of Personnel Management in which he said:
If the Social Charter is to be worthy of support by all the heads of government of the European Community, it must be clear it is a statement of objectives and not a shorthand version of legislative programmes. It should be expressly agreed even though the objectives are shared, it does not follow that it is necessary and appropriate to seek to achieve them all by European Community legislation.
So, as far as the vice-president of the European Commission is concerned, it is to be a mere statement of objectives.
At the Heads of Government meeting in December, they will be asked to accept the social charter as a "solemn declaration". What will that mean? What legal effect will that have? The answer is, none at all. Mrs. Papandreou explained:
Of course legally it is not binding. This means if these rights are not implemented in the Member States the workers may not go to the Court of Justice".
The House will notice the difference between the single internal market and the economic dimension on the one hand, and the social dimension on the other—between the business man's Europe, and the workers' Europe. The internal market, had first a White Paper, outlining 300 steps, then a treaty—the Single European Act—which gave it a legal basis and majority voting. The social dimension has no White Paper, no treaty, no legal basis and no majority voting—only plenty of vested interests capable of standing in its way, and nullifying it.
If the solemn declaration were adopted—although according to what the Secretary of State has said, it sounds as though Britain will veto it—the Commission would then have to go away and work out a whole number of draft regulations and directives, and that would take a long time. The draft regulations and directives would then have to go to the Council of Ministers where, on past experience, they would get stuck for years and be dealt with by unanimity. In other words, everyone would have a veto.
We have had the Vredeling proposals on worker participation and the Commission already has a draft directive on part-time work. However, they have been delayed in the Council of Ministers for almost 10 years, with little evidence of any change of heart. Mrs. Papandreou admitted all this, saying:
You are right that most of this comes under unanimity, not majority, which means it is very difficult, and in some cases nearly impossible to get some proposals adopted by the Council.
I notice that the Secretary of State does not mind doing things on health and safety, which is the one area that has a qualified majority, which therefore means that he has no choice. He has to make such moves whether he likes it or not. However, Mrs. Papandreou told us:


On other issues—social security, equal opportunities, mobility of people—we need unanimity … most of the important issues come under unanimity, and this is a problem.
She also said:
There is no way to oblige the Council to take a decision; if they do not want to take a decision, it is very difficult to oblige them.
Although Mrs. Papandreou said that she would take the proposals to the Council by the end of 1992, she also said:
then it is up to the Council to decide and there is the problem, because we cannot impose a timetable on the Council and if there is unanimity, then some of these proposals may be delayed for years, as has happened already.
In conclusion, the social charter is, alas, something of a non-event. It is an empty gesture, a slogan, a figleaf to cover the competitive free-for-all of 1992. So while the Labour party should support the social charter, it would be a self-delusion for us to expect too much from it. One thing is obvious—while the present Government remain in office, they can block the charter. When this Government are ejected from office, we will not need it, for we shall be able to legislate for workers' rights, here in Westminster. We need not waste too much time on the will-o'-the-wisp of Socialism through the back door; rather, let us work for a new Labour Government to legislate for Socialism through the front door.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier, I raised a point of order relating to documents to be deposited in the Vote Office arising from the presidency text that will be dealt with in Strasbourg. This afternoon, the Select Committee on European Legislation has considered that text and its report is now available in the Vote Office.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has been very helpful.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: As a result of listening to the past two speeches from the Labour Benches, I am a little confused about exactly what the Labour party's policy is on the social charter. The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) described the social charter as "anodyne" and a "non-event". However, the authentic voice of the yuppie tendency in the new model Labour party, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) seemed to think that the social charter was the greatest thing since sliced bread. I was amazed by the sound of his barking up the wrong tree until we reached that magical moment when there was an intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). As a result of that intervention it dawned on the hon. Member for Sedgefield that he might be championing a cause that would be unlawful under the social charter that he warmly endorsed. His incomprehension was visible. Suddenly he realised that the closed shop might be outlawed under the social charter that he was so enthusiastically endorsing. That thought had not dawned on him before.
A degree of incomprehension exists not only in the Labour party, but inside the Brussels Commission. I visited the Commission a few days ago and discovered some of the reasons why it completely fails to understand the depth of dislike for the social charter which exists on

the Conservative Benches and which, once it is well understood, will exist in the country at large. That incomprehension stems not from an argument about what should or should not be part of the possible social dimension of the single European market, but from something far greater and far deeper. The divide is far wider.
The civil servants of Brussels are now so thrilled by the pace of their own momentum towards their chosen goal of a federalist united states of Europe that they simply no longer accept the legitimacy of the legislature, the sovereign parliament, of a member state. That is the great divide. We are discussing a series of issues that, a few years ago or even a few months ago, no one ever considered would be anything other than the sovereign preserve of the domestic legislature. Employment and industrial policies are the very gut issues upon which parliaments have always had, and still have, the sovereign right to decide. If we start handing over that part of our domestic agenda to the Commission we must take that step slowly and carefully.
The great divide is not whether we are good Europeans, but whether we should be bad parliamentarians. The question is whether we should hand to Brussels control over a vast swathe of our domestic policy or fight to keep it under the control of the House of Commons, whichever party is in power. Opposition Members who have so enthusiastically, but thoughtlessly, endorsed the social charter today may come to regret it when the boot is on the other foot, as it will be one day. When they want to introduce legislation to improve social rights or trade union rights they will find they are unable to do so because of the social charter.
After 10 years of hard work to try to unshackle British industry from a whole lot of restrictions and to get rid of trade union abuse of power it is understandable that Conservatives should be reluctant to see all that good work suddently destroyed by a social charter that imposes a whole lot of new restrictions and new trade union powers over the head of our domestic legislation.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that minimum social policies are laid out in the social charter and that it would be the responsibility of an individual Government, a sovereign state, to build on those policies if it so desired? The Conservative Government are more concerned about any restrictions on the free market economy and that is why they are resisting the idea of a social charter for Europe.

Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman will find that what he calls the "minimum" will be an expensive and much more far-reaching minimum than the mere terms of the social charter declaration. The hon. Member for Newham, North-East was right to say that the social charter has no legal status and, on the face of it, it is a fairly anodyne series of declarations. Those declarations, however, are declarations of principle which will open the floodgates to a mass of European legislation and EC directives that will completely change the face of British social and industrial policy.
One need only follow up some of the words of Mrs. Papandreou, who has been quite articulate on this matter, to appreciate the scope of the social charter. On 20 November she gave a press conference at which she outlined, in fairly menacing detail, the European


Commission's programme of legislation that would follow the acceptance of the social charter and which would put it into practice. That programme of action consists of no fewer than 47 separate measures, some of them more than 100 pages long. That blueprint—in view of Mrs. Papandreou's well-known political affiliations, perhaps we should call it a redprint—was recently described by the New Statesman as
The Holy Grail of the Left".
That shows that that magazine knows what it is saying when it endorses a policy so popular with the Labour party.
Those 47 legislative measures and directives can be imposed on the House of Commons and on the British people by the majority voting mechanism in Europe, even though we may wish to object. They cover a wide range of issues, including working hours, health and safety at work, conditions for pregnant women, worker share ownership, equality of men and women and workers' participation. It is appropriate that those measures should be introduced by a Greek Socialist, as the social charter will be a Trojan horse of expenses for British industry. Mrs. Papandreou will go down in history as the face that launched a thousand British bankruptcies—if we get away with a thousand we will be lucky.
What will the directives mean to a small British business? Let us take the least controversial item on Mrs. Papandreou's shopping list, that relating to health and safety at work. It sounds admirable and we are all in favour of good health and safety at work measures—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, you are not."] Opposition Members may shout that, but the Government have a proud record of supporting health and safety at work legislation.

Mr. Bernie Grant: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many young people have been killed or injured on youth training schemes introduced by the Government?

Mr Aitken: I am absolutely certain that the health and safety inspectorate has repeatedly endorsed our legislation as the best available health and safety at work legislation. Often, it was approved in this House with the support of both parties. All industrial accidents and injuries are tragic—there is no getting away from that—but the notion that Britain has a woefully inadequate set of health and safety laws is rubbish. Opposition Members know that that is rubbish as they often endorsed that very legislation.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Does the hon. Gentleman accept there are two parts to health and safety legislation? The first relates to the legal framework and the second relates to the ability to enforce that framework. The number of factory inspectors has been cut by the Government and the number of deaths and injuries at work has increased. Does the hon. Gentleman accept or refute that?

Mr. Aitken: I simply do not accept that. Let us go a step further, as we are debating the social charter and not the minutiae of how many inspectors we have. The important question is to what extent the social charter will enhance health and safety at work legislation. I took the trouble to look up the EC draft legislation on health and safety at work, to be introduced once the social charter is

implemented. It makes fascinating reading. First I was struck by the sheer scope of it—a 175-page document, which contains an absolutely amazing list of items. Paragraph 2:18:1 of the draft legislation states:
Outdoor workers shall be protected against inclement weather conditions
Tell that to the shepherds of the north of Scotland or the trawlermen on the North sea as the Euro-inspectors are called in to see that all outdoor workers are protected satisfactorily against all inclement weather conditions.
Paragraph 2:14:3 states:
Appropriate measures for the protection of non smokers shall be taken in staff rest rooms.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] What has that to do with the single market? Hon. Gentlemen who say, "Hear, hear" should think of small businesses and employers who have to pay the bills for this social engineering, because they will have to bear heavy costs.
Many other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall truncate this part of my speech. Time and again in the back-up documents to the social charter we find many items that are to do with social engineering and will cost employers a great deal of money. If Mrs. Papandreou or any of her successors supplements Britain's excellent existing health and safety at work legislation with these items, it will prove mighty expensive.
The social charter will do nothing for small businesses except make them more expensive and legalistic to run them. It will do nothing for Europe's 14 million unemployed except make it harder for them to find jobs. It will do nothing for young people except restrict under 18-year-olds from certain types of employment. If we check the text of the charter we can see that such restrictions exist. It will definitely hurt, for example, the paper boy and those young people under 18 who want to get jobs as kitchen hands in McDonalds restaurants serving Big Macs and so on. The social charter contains savage restrictions.
Who will it help if it does not help small businesses, the unemployed and young people? It will help the fat cats of Brussels; it will be a bonanza for the lawyers and bureaucrats who will be assisted by the social charter. It will not strengthen Britain's legislation for such social engineering to be brought in. However, if it is to be brought in, let it be done by the will of a sovereign Parliament and Members who have been elected by the public on a manifesto for that purpose. If that is what the Opposition achieve, good luck to them. That is British democracy, but to see it done through the back door—

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Single European Act.

Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman shouts, "Single European Act," but he should return to the question that was asked of his hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield who could not answer: what happens when, under the Single European Act and the social charter, the Labour party's cherished views on increasing trade unions' powers are made illegal even though Labour Members have been elected on a ticket saying that they will increase the rights of trade unions to run closed shops? Conservative Members may give three cheers that the social charter is doing a great job, but the Opposition who abdicated the rights of a sovereign Parliament will learn the hard way that, by endorsing the social charter, they are throwing away an important part of Britain's parliamentary history and tradition.

Mr. James Wallace: Hon. Members who have heard the previous two speeches might be confused. The Select Committee's distinguished chairman, the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) said that what we are debating today does not add up to much. The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) said that it is about to herald a social revolution. People would have cause to be confused but for the fact that this debate, like so many of our European debates, contains some familiar landmarks.
The hon. Member for Thanet, South and some of his hon. Friends tabled an amendment which shows how much they cling to a disappearing mirage of national parliamentary sovereignty. Ministers have beaten their breasts about how pro-European they are and excused themselves by saying that everyone is out of step except them. The slight difference this time is that Labour Front-Bench spokesmen have given an almost warm embrace to the European proposals before us. We would not have seen that in the previous Parliament, and did not even see it last night when right hon. and hon. Members of the Labour party could not bring themselves to support the amendment of my right hon. and hon. Friends which called for an early commitment to enter the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS.
There is a familiarity about European debates. This one on the social charter is significant. The majority of our fellow citizens have by now heard of 1992 and the single market. While these developments are to our considerable advantage and to be welcomed, I suspect that most people are hazy about what will happen. No matter how much effort is made, there is still a feeling that the single market and 1992 are all about big businesses and financial institutions—a sphere of our community life to which many people do not relate. However, the social charter is widely seen as relevant to the lives of ordinary men and women.
Although the hon. Member for Newham, North-East said that the social charter was a figleaf, it is seen as symbolic. It is neither an abstract measure nor one of those European regulations that attracts headlines because of an excess of bureaucratic zeal which makes it ridiculous. It is seen as something with the potential, in the long term, of improving the lot of many ordinary people in a relevant and meaningful way.
Not surprisingly, the Government's response has been bitterly disappointing. Perhaps if they, like us, were more confident of their commitment to the European Community and the cause of greater European unity, they would be more willing to approach these matters in a constructive rather than destructive mode. To be pro-European does not imply a willingness to accept everything that the Commission proposes. If the social charter proposed, as it did originally, a European minimum wage, I would have opposed that aspect. However, its commitment is solely that those in employment should be remunerated at a level on which they can afford to live. That is—or at least should be—unexceptional.

Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, with so much of this transnational acquisition taking place, it is by no means improbable that some companies will acquire factories in other low-wage countries, and find that, to

achieve rationalisation within the multinational which they then have, they have to close the factories in the low-wage country? That will have a devastating effect on jobs, including those over here.

Mr. Wallace: I think that the hon. Gentleman meant it the other way round and was proposing closures in factories in high-wage countries.

Mr. John Marshall: rose—

Mr. Wallace: I shall answer the previous question.
Several factors influence investment decisions, of which wage costs are one. There are many others, including industrial relations. Is shall return to the argument that the social charter will lead to a loss of jobs. It seems to be at the core of the Government's opposition to the social charter; the Secretary of State said that it was the acid test.
The Secretary of State did not do the House a service when he tried to give the impression that Mrs. Papandreou said that the social charter would lead to job losses. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) quoted her statement on page 3 of her evidence to the Select Committee, when she said:
I do not think that the implementation of the Charter is going to have negative effects on job creation.
The Secretary of State countered that by saying that he had been at meetings with Mrs. Papandreou more often than had the hon. Member for Sedgefield. I have never been at a meeting with the lady. However, I noted that on page 7 of her evidence she repeated the point in different words but to the same effect. She said:
There is nothing clear that this is going to decrease employment.
It is a fallacy to say that jobs will automatically be lost and unemployment increased as a result of the social charter.
I accept that job creation is a major priority for the Community. It was agreed at Madrid that it was one of the Community's central objectives. Unemployment in the Community of almost 9 per cent. is far too high. There are other means open to the Community to promote employment and the generation of jobs. There are the regional and social funds. If the Government are so concerned about the generation of jobs, they might start applying the additionality principle in relation to spending from these funds. It is wrong to criticise these proposals by comparing them against a test which the proposals and those promoting them do not seek to put forward.
I do not accept that there is a contradiction between high employment, good health and safety practices and high wages. Often the opposite is true and where there are high wages there is also high employment. That is the case in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). Scottish Members will know that the Aberdeen area has some of the highest wages in Scotland, yet Gordon has the lowest unemployment in Scotland—2·9 per cent. Other factors, such as the introduction of technology and a recognition of the importance of training, can help to promote productivity and competitiveness. In many cases employment is restricted by the shortage of adequate skills.
The social charter sets out the rights to vocational training throughout one's working life, especially by means of study leave. It gives people under the age of 18 a guarantee of training during working hours which in many ways can promote employment. Employment can be curtailed too, by things such as high interest rates. It is


wholly bogus to say that the establishment of better working conditions and the right to training will lead to a diminution of employment opportunities.
The Government seem to have considerable reservations about the right of workers to information, consultation and participation in industry. It will be no surprise to the House to know that we consider such rights to be important. They have been at the core of Liberal policy since the yellow book of 1928 and are at the heart of the policies of the Liberal Democrats. [Laughter.] Conservative Members laugh, but in his speech the Secretary of State placed great emphasis on what the Government have done to promote profit-sharing and employee share ownership. If he had had the time he would have acknowledged the fact that it was during the Lib-Lab pact of 1978 that the initial measures for profit-sharing were introduced. To their credit, the Government have built upon those measures, but they have not gone far enough.
In a speech at a CBI seminar in November, the Secretary of State, speaking about the traditions of other European countries, said:
Take employee involvement … their traditions are not ours. Ours is a voluntary system and, for us, successful employee involvement is best developed on the basis of voluntary agreement. This does not rule out the three models in the Commission list; but it does mean that list is not exclusive.
I accept that there must be flexibility in working out the detail of employee councils at the place of work. We must provide opportunities for participation by employees at the top level. But there is a tremendous complacency which says that because our system is different it is by definition better. There would be some justification for saying that if our system of industrial relations was seen to work. However, over the past 10 years the Government have secured industrial peace through high unemployment. It is only now, when in some parts of the country unemployment has fallen, or where there is almost full employment, that industrial disruption is again beginning to raise its head. The Government have failed to address themselves to any proper system of industrial relations.
We should not dismiss what we can learn from our European partners. It was the British who gave the Germans a good system of industrial relations after the second world war. We should be looking to the successful West German economy.

Mr. Rooker: We also gave the Germans their electoral system.

Mr. Wallace: We gave them a federal system too, which we would do well to copy. West Germany has shown that the development of trade unionism and proper industrial relations can go hand in hand in a successful economy.
The Secretary of State talked about the opening up of eastern Europe. I suspect that, when the countries of eastern Europe look west to try to improve their economies, they will look not at the British model but at the West German model. We should do that too. The charter gives the Community an opportunity for a much-needed social dimension. If insularity and complacency again stop us playing our part in that, it will be a sad mistake. It is because the charter offers a social dimension that we shall support the Opposition amendment.

Mr. Roger Gale: I welcome the opportunity to place on record a concern that has been expressed to me by my constituents and for which I have considerable sympathy. It is that nowhere in the social charter does the Community recognise its responsibility under God. Under charters such as the Magna Carta, the German charter and the charter of the Irish Republic, that fact is recognised.
In recent years, Parliament has enshrined in law provision to recognise conscience, especially in trade union law. I sought to raise that matter during the speech by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), but he did not see fit to give way to me. The hon. Gentleman made it abundantly plain after an intervention by one of my hon. Friends that the Opposition are still wedded to the idea of a closed shop and the compulsion which that entails.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) said in his excellent speech, 47 measures are designed to spring as directives from the social charter. It is not an anodyne document or simply the basis for a talking shop, because it will lead to at least 47 separate action measures. Each of those can and may impinge upon the consciences of some of my constituents and the consciences of many people throughout the Community.

Mr. Allen McKay: There is a conscience clause in closed-shop agreements that allows a person not to be a member of a trade union but to pay contributions to a charity.

Mr. Gale: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I said that that principle was enshrined in the law of the United Kingdom. This debate is not about the law of the United Kingdom but about the law of Europe as it may be changed by European directives. That fact is of tremendous significance to many people throughout the Community who hold religious beliefs that the hon. Gentleman and I may not hold, and that is simply not recognised.
As has been suggested, the social charter as it stands will destroy jobs. It is not a social charter but worse, because it is a Socialist charter that may well lead to the denial throughout the European Community of religious freedoms that are passionately and deeply held by many people. There is no monopoly in the House on deeply held belief and we all know that beliefs are held as deeply on the Opposition side as they are on the Government side. It is important that any charter that the European Community might adopt should reflect the religious views of people throughout the Community. I hope that all hon. Members will insist upon that.

Mr. Ken Eastham: The fact that Ministers are in a state of panic is obvious from the distortion and hysteria that they are directing to the House. I assure the Government that some of us met Mrs. Papandreou when she appeared before the Select Committee. I can verify that the Secretary of State engaged in a great deal of distortion in his speech. The record is there to be read.
The more that I hear the Prime Minister, other Ministers, the CBI and big business ranting and raving about the social charter, the more I am in tune with those who say that there is something good in it for ordinary


working people. The details of the charter have not been made clear to the mass of the people, and the more that those details are explained to them the more the ordinary people like the prospects held out by the social charter.
I used to think that there was not very much in the EC for the British people, and I remember some of the high costs that were incurred in agriculture and other matters. On those occasions there were no protests from the Government or from big business, because they thought that there were big profits to be made. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Conservative Members say, "Nonsense." I accept that there are some exceptions, but the number is small. Big business used all its efforts and its finance to make sure that we joined the EC. Suddenly it is dawning on big business and the Government that sometimes one or two good things can come from the EC. Consequently, they seem to be backing off and saying that we must be independent and see which way we are going. They say that we must he careful about all the dangers that arise from the social charter. If this happens, it will be one of the rare pluses of membership.
Whenever the Government start quoting the CBI and big business, we know that they are interested only in profit. The Government do not claim that the trade unions are opposed to the social charter, and I assure the House that the TUC and any trade union members to whom I explain the social charter are fully behind it and look forward to the day when it can he introduced to Britain.

Mr. Quentin Davies: What about the closed shop?

Mr. Eastham: Tory Members keep talking about the closed shop. Usually they are people who have never worked in a factory and do not even know what the closed shop is about.

Mr. Davies: I am looking forward to hearing from the hon. Gentleman his explanation of his party's attitude towards the closed shop. We have been waiting all afternoon for an answer on this important point.

Mr. Eastham: I shall explain it again to the hon. Gentleman. Please watch my mouth. There is a conscience clause for people who find themselves in difficulties with the closed shop. Is that in plain enough English? It has been explained once before, although it is possible that the hon. Gentleman was not here.

Mr. Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman accept, on behalf of the Labour party, that if the social charter were accepted, it would make pre-entry closed shops illegal? Is he, on behalf of the Labour party, accepting that as a consequence of his support for the social charter?

Mr. Eastham: The document is not legally binding, but it would be encouraging if we were to honour and recognise some of the codes in it. I am sure that working people would overwhelmingly approve that. It is strange that of the 12 nations of the EC, 11 agree with the social charter and support it. Surprise, surprise, only Britain does not support it. Why is it that the economies of these countries are better than ours? They have lower interest rates, lower unemployment rates and better balances of payments than we do. However, they are all prepared to accept the social charter. That makes some of the empty arguments that we have heard today even more unconvincing.
On several occasions, the Government have said that if we have the social charter, we shall lose jobs. However, even without a social charter, over the past 10 years we have lost millions of jobs. At one time, 3 million people were unemployed and we had the worst unemployment figure in Europe. The Conservative Government are not bad at creating unemployment, with or without the social charter.
What is the charter all about? It is about rights of employment, training, discrimination, the right to withdraw labour, part-time working, low pay, health and safety. One or two hon. Members have spoken about health and safety and I assure the House that there is great concern about the growing number of industrial injuries. I am an engineer and yesterday I went with a deputation to meet the Secretary of State for Energy. We were concerned about the safety standards on offshore oil rigs. We told the Secretary of State that fatality rates on our oil rigs are one and a half times those of the world average. Furthermore, there has been no improvement in 25 years and these figures are twice those for the oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico.

Mr. Loyden: Earlier on, a Conservative Member referred to safety standards in Britain, but did not mention that 156 building workers died through accidents in the construction industry. Does that show that there are adequate safety measures in that industry?

Mr. Eastham: I am sure that many of my hon. Friends could give illustrations of this problem. However, as health and safety standards in the United Kingdom were spoken of as if everything were all right, I felt that this matter should be underlined.
Some of the engineers working on the oil rigs are on two-week contracts. If any of them dare to complain about safety risks and possible fatalities, not only are their contracts not renewed, but they are put on a blacklist. Some Conservative Members get emotional about the closed shop, but workers should have rights in relation to these blacklists. What about the activities of the Economic League? This secret service organisation is compiling lists of workers, is not answerable to anybody and is not even a Government body. It is a private organisation run by big business. It blacklists workers and denies them the right to work for the rest of their lives. We feel that some of these things should be put right.
Why do we have such a terrible strike record? For instance, in 1988, 3,702,000 days were lost through strikes.

Dame Elaine Kellet-Bowman: What about 1978?

Mr. Eastham: It is laying eggs. Now and again it happens. It was over there before, and it is over there now. She has just woken up.
I have some statistics that may be interesting when we consider labour relations and our appalling record on strikes. Workers in other European countries also have the right to strike, but the figures for these countries are much better. Per 1,000 workers, the United Kingdom lost 400 days, Denmark 250, France and Germany 50, and the Netherlands 10. It is no use the Prime Minister pontificating about other trade unions and other working groups in other countries, as she did when she went to Poland, when she demanded rights for the trade union workers, and then coming back here and, year after year,


eroding the standards of working conditions for British workers. We now have the lowest paid worker groups in Europe—far worse than Germany, France or Italy.
These are some of the reasons why we believe that the social charter is a useful vehicle. It is not perfect, but at least it is a beginning. Regardless of the attitudes of a reactionary Government, we know that if the social charter is placed before the workers—[Interruption.] The Minister seems to think that this is a great joke. There is a smile all over his face. It is not a big joke to me. The Minister sneers and sniggers, but he will not do that when we enter the next general election. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I will draw attention to his behaviour when in office.
I believe that there is progress to be made. The Government cannot get away with everything for ever. The more that the people know about the social charter, the more they will support the Opposition.

6 pm

Mr. Peter Griffiths: It would be a great pity if the impression were given that we are debating a specific series of proposals rather like the constitution of the United States or a Bill of Rights—something clearly established which reflects the desire of people that it should be set down firmly and in writing.
We are not discussing inalienable rights that are seen as self-evident. Rather, we are talking about a moving target. The Opposition's amendment refers to "the" social charter. Even our annunciators refer to "the" social charter. We have, however, had at least three versions of it. When final decisions are made on the principle at Strasbourg, we shall be dealing with what is, in effect, the fourth version. It is important for us to recognise that we are trying to decide whether the House believes that there should be a social dimension to the political and economic changes that are being brought about in western Europe, which will reach a significant peak in 1992.
I disagree with my hon. Friends who say that there is little role for a social charter; I believe that there is. There must be a social dimension if we are to carry the people along with the concept of ever closer economic and political union. If we are to do that, there will have to be a social dimension.
I am worried because the debate has reflected the extreme views of those who say we should accept and endorse a social charter. It is surprising that the Opposition suggest in their amendment that they are prepared to take it lock, stock and barrel. Presumably, they are endorsing what has been said, what will be said and what will emerge from the action programme. The directives and recommendations that flow from that may not contain the wording that we wish.
The social charter as we see it now is very much a charter for social organisations. Perhaps that is why it is attractive to the Opposition. A social dimension should emphasise the right of labour as a social organisation and the rights of individuals and the family, on which our societies are founded. One of the tragedies is that Britain has not pressed the view that the foundation of society in western Europe should be the family rather than any social organisation that has arisen from the industrial revolution and later.
I hope that the Minister who replies will deal with the point that whether or not we decide to support the social charter, there will be a social charter in Europe. The real question is to what extent we shall have control. Shall we be able to make real decisions on the directives and recommendations that have been listed? We know already that some of them will be subject to unanimity while some will be subject to majority voting. What will happen if there is a majority vote carrying a proposal that we regard as profoundly unacceptable? I do not wish to take up the argument about the closed shop, but proposals could be contained in directives and recommendations which eventually would be just as objectionable to Opposition Members as to my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Gentleman said that the social charter does not embrace anything more than organisations. We would not dream of supporting something that was restricted to organisations. The social charter is concerned with equality of men and women and rights of individuals. It could concentrate on issues that would give the maximum benefit to the individual, who is often in organisations. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that the social charter relates only to organisations.

Mr. Griffiths: I profoundly disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The charter is concerned basically with social organisations that arise as a result of economic activity. It seems to regard people as factors of production, while I wish to see them as individuals and families. I trust that we shall make it clear tonight that we are embracing the concept of a social foundation for any movement towards greater harmonisation in Europe. I hope that we shall make it clear that we wish changes that are brought about following the acceptance of a social charter to emphasise the traditional social values—the individual and the family —which in this country predate the development of industrial society.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Anyone listening to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) might think that the House was debating conditions in the workplace, which would involve issues such as health provision, safety conditions, equality of opportunity, training, consultation, collective rights of workers and unemployment benefit. Instead, we are debating who will make the law that reflects social changes in the work place, and with what authority that responsibility shall be exercised. That is the key issue.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: We are also discussing who will obey this law. The Government's record of derogation from European law is unequalled within Europe. The right hon. Gentleman lives in the north of Ireland, and he knows that there is another Government who infringe the right of individuals to shop where they want to shop.

Mr. Taylor: For the first time in this place, to my memory, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention and the strong admonition that he has directed to the Fianna Fail Government in the Republic of Ireland, who deny their citizens the right to shop in Northern Ireland. Yet they say that they are good Europeans.
The real issue is whether we want diversity of national practice to be accepted within the European Community or whether we want harmonisation in Europe—known as social integration. There must be consistency because we now have the Single European Act, which directs that in time there will be social integration throughout the European Community. I was a Member of the European Parliament for 10 years and the movement towards a federal Europe is almost unstoppable. There will be an integrated Europe. As the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) said, there will be a United States of Europe.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) was consistent with the European Single Act tonight. The Opposition are suggesting that the British people should surrender their right through elections to decide their social policy; and that the British people should abandon their right through their sovereign Parliament to enact social policy. That is consistent with the Single European Act. The Labour party has done a somersault. It has surrendered the right of the British people to pass legislation for workers on the shop floor. It is handing over power to a bureaucracy in Brussels, consistent with the European Act.
At least the Labour party is consistent. There is no consistency from the Government or Conservative Back Benchers. They are in disarray, fudging the issue and running away from what the Single European Act means to the United Kingdom. The Conservative party is about to have a leadership election—for a change—and one reason for that is the diversity of views on European issues on the Conservative Benches.
The time has come when the Conservative party must be consistent. Having supported the Single European Act, either they now implement it fully and abandon power to Brussels, or they think again and stand up for the rights of British workers in British industry.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) has been rather unfair to the Labour party. The Single European Act was debated late at night when, sadly, only one of his colleagues was present, and 20 Labour Members voted against it. Opposition Members have changed their minds dramatically, but it is unfair to describe them as changelings, because one or two of them voted against that shameful Act.
However, the right hon. Gentleman was right to say that the real issue that we are debating is not the social charter. The social charter may bring joy to the faces of some Socialists because it is written in such general terms that it can mean anything to anybody. It may say that it will bring freedom to workers and decent wages, that it will guarantee social rights, give a maximum duration of working hours, guarantee weekly rest periods, even for part-time workers, and encourage an appropriate degree of participation. But those are simply slogans.
If I were an elderly member of the Labour party or somebody who has battled in the trade union movement, that is the kind of thing that I would want. If a public opinion poll asked people whether they agreed with those slogans, the vast majority of people would say, "Yes, that's a grand idea." But the real issue is whether we as a Parliament are prepared to surrender a huge area of our sovereignty to a non-elected, non-democratic institution.

We cannot deny that the Commission is unelected. It is not answerable to the people in any way. Acting by majority rule, the Council of Ministers is in no way democratic. Whether the words in the social charter are good or bad, whether we like the slogans or not, it means that we must surrender a massive degree of our sovereignty to make laws on trade unions, labour relations and health and safety.
Earlier today I asked my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary what we can still do ourselves without being subject to European control. He said that I would have to work that out for myself by looking at what powers we have already given to the European Parliament. It was encouraging to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who has always been an enthusiast for the Common Market, say that the Government are opposed to some aspects of the social charter and will battle against them.
I enjoyed my right hon. Friend's speech. He talked wonderful common sense. But what on earth can the Government do? The social charter is a collection of slogans. It means nothing. It directs the Commission to produce directives. But my right hon. Friend is well aware that even if the social charter is not approved, even if we and the European Council tear it up, the Commission can, under the Single European Act, present all the directives and institute a massive amount by a majority vote. The Commission has already said that. The Socialists in the European Parliament say that, if no progress is made, they will work to rule whether that is lawful or not. I asked the Prime Minister, who is one of the most honest Prime Ministers that Britain has ever had,
if the EEC Commission is now empowered to issue the social charter directives to the various Councils of Ministers in light of the majority vote".—[Official Report, 18 July 1989; Vol.157, c.141.]
She said that, under the Single European Act, the Commission could go ahead with them.
I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister replies he will tell the British people what we shall do if the directives go through by a majority vote and we find them unacceptable and wrong. That is the big issue that we must face up to tonight and in future. What shall we do if the EC insists on passing laws which we find utterly unacceptable?

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman is speaking as though the directives that might come from the EEC based on the social charter will be unacceptable to the great majority of people in Britain. Given the low level of protection in the workplace and in social matters, the great majority of people in Great Britain will be very much in favour of such directives.

Mr. Taylor: Yes, I am sure they will. On the other hand, if the directive is passed that makes the closed shop illegal, some members of the Labour party could object. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, as a good parliamentarian—he is always here when the others are out there—will ask what a Labour Government would do if laws passed under the Single European Act were utterly unacceptable. The Government are facing a crisis. What are they to do, bearing in mind that the Common Market is going much further than we thought it would under the Single European Act?
There are several things that we can do. We can simply say that we will not apply the regulations. In a splendid article in The Sunday Telegraph, Professor Minford said


that that was what the Government should do; that if laws were passed that we did not like, we should tell the Commission to get lost. That is a rather unusual proposal for a Conservative Government who believe that law and order should apply. It is the kind of thing that Ian Smith did and which we thought was wrong.
But we must stop kidding ourselves. Only a few weeks ago the Prime Minister said that we should forget about the previous budgetary restraints. We now have legally binding budgetary restraints. If cereal production went beyond 160 million tonnes, under the stabiliser farmers would see a cut in their prices. That figure has been exceeded this year, and last week, even though our Minister voted against it, the Commission agreed to disregard the extra above 160 million tonnes because it said that it would not be appropriate to do otherwise. Therefore, we can forget about that.
In the same way, we were told that the budgetary controls would work, but we found that because expenditure was going through the roof the Commission and the Councils decided to have a metric year of 10 months with 10 years' income and 12 months' expenditure. The same has happened time and again. Ministers say that all the refunds that we have had are wonderful, but they know that this year our net contribution is the highest that it has ever been, at more than £2 billion.
I hope that, following the excellent speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment in which he said that if regulations are unacceptable we will oppose them, he will tell us how we will oppose them. What powers do we have to oppose them? At the end of the day, we must make up our minds. I hope that the Government will soon realise that in a democracy in Britain, whether we have a Conservative or a Labour Government, a Liberal or a nationalist Government, the people want certain things to be done. They do not want them done by bureaucrats in Brussels, nor do they want them done without a democratic vote. In the same way, the people of Greece may want a different form of government and different trade union laws. That is what democracy is all about.
I hope that the time will soon come when the Government realise that it is a question not of a concept that attacks Toryism or Socialism but of one that attacks the basic democracy of our country. Power-hungry bureaucrats in Brussels are taking more and more power. At the end of the day, whether the social charter contains words that appeal to Socialists or to Tories, the real issue is whether democracy can continue and whether our Government are prepared to do anything to ensure that it does.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Tonight we are debating the idea that the economic and social cohesion of the single European market is crucial and that there cannot be one without the other. We are in danger of short-changing our citizens by not securing for them the full social and economic advantages that the single market offers. I do not see how the United Kingdom can opt out of ensuring decent pay and the right to an annual holiday—and no such right exists in our country—as well as rights for Britain's 6 million part-time workers.
As I said during business questions last week, I make no apology for changing my mind about the Common Market as I have witnessed the development of the European Community. I freely admit that, with many others, I voted no in the referendum on Britain's entry into the Common Market. However, tonight I am here with my right hon. and hon. Friends on a three-line Whip, because Labour is prepared to embrace the reality of the modern European Community. We are not debating now the same things that were on offer 10 or 15 years ago. The address given by Jacques Delors to the 1988 Trades Union Congress and the standing ovation given to the Socialist leader in the European Parliament at this year's Labour party conference would not have happened there a few years ago.
We take for granted the Prime Minister's abuse and her writing off of the charter when it was first published. The fact remains that, however the Government dress up their opposition—be it in the form of a choice line in abuse or preposterous claims about the social charter outlawing school pupils from delivering newspapers—what they really cannot stomach is that over a whole range of workers' rights, from fair play and social security to health and safety and training, the social charter will not allow any retrogression in respect of the status quo, so there can be no more backward steps. That is in itself a step forward and one that we should grab for our fellow citizens.
As I reminded the Secretary of State in an intervention early in his speech, the Conservative Government's first legislative action on taking power in 1979 was to remove workers' rights in respect of unfair dismissal. A charter of fundamental rights, let alone one of social rights, is long overdue. After the experience of the past 10 years it is hardly surprising that the British Labour and trade union movements at last recognise that acting in concert with other progressive democratic forces in Europe is to the overwhelming advantage of British workers as well as of our neighbours on the mainland of Europe.
We have only to look at the events that are occurring throughout eastern Europe to see that those who oppose the establishment of basic rights are living in a bygone age but where others move forward the Government become even more entrenched. The social charter is crucial at a time when capital is ignoring international frontiers. It is vital that social rights for workers, pensioners, the disabled and others covered by the social charter should become more entrenched. The social charter that emerges from future discussions must serve as the cornerstone of the plans to remove barriers between member states in 1992.
Anyone who examines the way that we organise ourselves in this country—particularly non-British nationals—can clearly see that the few individual rights that trickle down from those who rule under our system can easily dry up. Part of the idea behind the charter is to stop that happening. That is not to say that we knock democracy or Parliament. There is nothing wrong in adjusting one's view according to one's experience, and I believe now that in a democracy nothing should be irreversible. However—and this is the rub—major decisions that go against the grain of fundamental rights should not solely be the gift of a single body, be it one elected parliament, the judiciary, or a single Government. There must be a bedrock upon which we can test the laws that are brought before individual parliaments to ensure that they are fair.
I say without apology that I see the social charter, be it the first, second, third or fourth version, as the thin end of an extremely thick wedge and something upon which we can build up the rights of citizens in this country. We should not have to apologise for that.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Opposition's view on developments in central Europe is that the concept of the level playing field of economics in Europe without a social charter to complement it is so unacceptable that we shall do all that we can to prevent it. The social charter is a minimum condition upon which future European developments must be based.
Under 10 years of Conservative Government there has been an annual erosion of workers' rights. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said, the very first action of the Conservative Government in 1979 was to undermine the rights of workers in respect of unfair dismissal. It is hardly surprising that the Government should today, as on every other occasion, make clear their opposition to the social charter and that they will use every mechanism and means, however devious or dishonest, to undermine progress towards a social Europe.
The Government are worried about developments in Europe, and we should recognise the dishonesty that their campaign against the charter has already embodied. The Secretary of State for Employment and his Minister of State do not even seem able to get their act together. The Secretary of State has been quoted as saying that he would support a social charter, "but not this one", whereas only a few days earlier the Minister of State commented:
It is no secret that the United Kingdom Government have reservations about the whole concept of a social charter. Indeed, our approach, our traditions, lead us to believe that one is not needed.
When the Minister of State winds up the debate, perhaps he will say what the reality is. Is the Secretary of State correct in saying that there should be some form of social charter, albeit not the one proposed—as was said yesterday by the Foreign Secretary? Or is the Minister of State right when he says that there should be no social charter—which is also the view of the Prime Minister?
The result of that confusion has been a campaign of unparalleled dishonesty from the Department of Employment and its Ministers in recent months. Even the European Commissioner, Sir Leon Brittan, who was a former Conservative Member, has said that British attacks on the Commission's proposed social charter of workers' rights have misrepresented its contents. He went on evenhandedly to denounce Europhiles and Europhobes as "superannuated Sumo wrestlers" and accused Downing street of being out of date in respect of worker participation and the social charter.
Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) pointed out how dishonest the Minister of State was in his remarks to the House two weeks ago, when he sought to misrepresent the comments of the European Commissioner, Mrs. Papandreou, and said that, in respect of worker involvement, the charter offered
a choice between the German, the French or the Dutch models"—[0fficial Report, 15 November 1989; Vol. 160, c. 446.]
That night I challenged the Minister to say where in the charter that was made explicit, but he did not respond to my challenge. I am sure that when I challenge him again

tonight to say where in the charter or in the action programme his claims are substantiated, once again he will refuse.
We heard earlier, and those who listened to the "Today" programme this morning will have heard, the Secretary of State claiming that managers in Britain show no support for the social charter. I quote from a press release from the British Institute of Management—[Interruption.] I hope that the Secretary of State, who is grimacing, accepts that the British Institute of Management says:
Managers are prepared to accept some form of legislation in this area. 76 per cent., responding to a recent British Institute of Management survey said that they would accept some legislation in the controversial area of employee participation.
That means that three out of four managers agree with the Opposition and are a long way from the Government's stance.
Let us examine the Government's claims about the social charter. Their major claim is that we have had 10 years of employment growth under this Government, and the social charter will put all that at risk. Let us establish the reality of the Government's claims on employment by going back to 1979. In July this year, the former Under-Secretary of State for Employment revealed the interesting fact that over the 10 years the growth rate of civilian employment in the EC was 0·6 per cent., but in the United Kingdom we witnessed a decline in employment of 0·1 per cent. When the Secretary of State produces his selective statistics for when employment growth began, he should realise that the Opposition will accept no lectures from him on employment growth or what destroys employment. Government action has done more than any other factor to damage employment in Britain.

Mr. Iain Mills: Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that he believes that the social charter will increase employment opportunities? Mrs. Papandreou gave no such evidence to the Select Committee.

Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have realised that that argument has run through the entire debate. When the Secretary of State sought to misrepresent Mrs. Papandreou's words and to claim that she had put forward an argument about job loss, his words were exposed as totally bogus. As he has now had the opportunity to study the verbatim report of her comments, I hope that the Secretary of State will accept that he was wrong. We shall continue to say that the Secretary of State misrepresented Mrs. Papandreou until he is prepared at least to do her the courtesy of reading what she said before the Select Committee.
Some years ago, when the Labour Government introduced the Equal Pay Acts, they were challenged by the Conservative Opposition who claimed that equal pay legislation would destroy jobs for women. Those Equal Pay Acts were implemented, and in the following years there was an increase of about 17 per cent. in women's employment. When we hear the bogus claims that the activities covered by the social charter will destroy jobs, we dismiss them with the same contempt as we dismissed Conservative claims about equal pay.
I have in front of me the explanatory memorandum in which the Minister of State states the Government's position:


Some of the measures proposed in the Charter would put at risk the progress made in the United Kingdom in the last ten years to set the economy on the right track.
The Minister of State knows how bogus those words are, as does every Conservative Member. He went on:
The Government welcomes continuing progress by the Community in those areas currently within its competence. These include measures to promote freedom of movement, health and safety at work, equality of treatment between women and men and measures to assist the integration into society and working life of people with disabilities.
Let me ask the Minister of State a simple question. Will he outline those parts of the Commission's proposals which will enhance the rights of employees in those specific areas? Will he outline those which the Government will seek to impose? We know very well that, although the Government pay lip service to the enhancement of people's rights at work, their record over 10 years has shown it to be an absolute lie.
On health and safety, this afternoon the Secretary of State claimed that the Government had a great interest in and great support for what the Commission was trying to achieve. The Government have an awful record on the health and safety of people at work, which led last year to 505 deaths and nearly 200,000 injuries in British industry. Yet under the present Government the numbers of people on the Health and Safety Executive and the number of factory inspectors have been cut consistently. We know that the factory inspectorate is not capable of properly monitoring safety in the workplace
When the British Government have been asked to consider proposals on health and safety at work from the European Community, they have managed to water them down. I refer specifically to the EC draft directive on noise at work which sought at first to adopt the West German limit of 85 dB. The British Government, prompted by the CBI, which the Secretary of State prayed in aid again today, successfully lobbied to have that limit increased to 90 dB. The implications are very serious. The recorded medical facts in the Health and Safety Commission report make it clear that workers who are exposed to noise levels of 90 dB consistently throughout their working lives stand a four in 10 chance of becoming deaf. That is what the British Government forced on the rest of the European Community.
Let us consider equal opportunities, where again the Secretary of State has told us that the Government are in the forefront of development. The Government have a disastrous record. They have been blocking the proposed directive on the burden of proof in equal opportunities employment disputes. The British Government have also been blocking the parental leave directive within the European Community.
Perhaps the Minister of State can say which parts of the action programme the Government are prepared to accept. If the Secretary of State is right that in Britain we are all in favour of equal opportunities, will he accept, for example, the directive on pregnant women at work? I hope that the Minister of State will pay attention and give me an answer. Will he accept the recommendations on child care which make provision for maternity and paternity leave to which the British Government have been firmly opposed in the past? Will the Government accept the recommendation for a code of conduct on the protection of pregnancy and maternity—again, issues which they have opposed in the

past? Despite what the Secretary of State says, the Government's record has been highly damaging to the role of women at work. The women of this country recognise that and will judge the Government on their attitude to the social charter.

Mr. Fowler: Just to complete the hon. Gentleman's questions and answers, will the Opposition accept the abolition of the pre-entry closed shop?

Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman has already been involved in that discussion. He and I know that it will come before the House very shortly. The real issue is whether the Government will accept under the social charter the rights of the people at GCHQ to join a trade union of their choice and to be represented at the work place in accordance with civilised opinion throughout Europe. Will the Minister of State answer that question about the social charter? I am sure that he will not.
We are aware of the splits in the Conservative party. We are aware of the leadership election and the division between the Europhiles and the Europhobes. By rejecting the charter the Government are not simply rejecting a vision of Europe; they are rejecting the right of the British people to be provided with minimum protection at work. A Labour Government will ensure that that protection is made available to the British people.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Tim Eggar): We have had a good debate. Let no hon. Member doubt that the Government are fully committed to the United Kingdom being an active member of the European Community. It is because of that commitment that we want agreements and arrangements that will work. The House and the country rightly expect us to look at new proposals from Brussels both critically and constructively. We have a duty to ask whether the social charter is good for Europe and for this country. If action needs to be taken over social issues, ought that action to be taken at Community level or should it be taken by this House?
The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and me about our attitude to the social charter. We do not believe that a social charter is essential, but we fully support the social dimension to the completion of the single market and believe that the key element of the social dimension must be to continue our efforts to bring down unemployment throughout the European Community.
We have never said that we shall never sign a social charter. If, however, we were to sign such a charter, it would have to be a short declaratory statement that set out broad objectives and took clear account of the Madrid conclusions, particularly the conclusion that gives priority to job creation. It would respect subsidiarity and would leave local agreements to be dealt with by national Governments. It would also take account of the diversity of national practices. It could, of course, easily include commitments to freedom of movement, to mutual recognition of qualifications throughout the Community, to freedom to engage in an occupation, to the equal treatment of men and women in employment and in training and to health and safety at work.
We are not prepared to commit ourselves in advance, but I do not think that we should have difficulty in agreeing to a number of the directives on health and safety.


Only two days ago I said in public that we should welcome the establishment in this country of a European institute to monitor health and safety. Let nobody be in any doubt about our commitment to a place for health and safety in European Community directives. The hon. Member for Sedgefield must not continue to perpetuate a canard in that respect. Our view is that the social charter does not at present meet the criteria that I have outlined. Our concerns are confirmed by the new European directives that have been set out in the Commission's action programme.
The charter raises expectations. Conservative Members know that all the implied promises of longer holidays, shorter hours and minimum wages have to be paid for, but we can find no evidence of the Commission having established how those costs will be met. In reality, they can be absorbed only through job losses. Neither the Commission nor the commissioner argues that the social charter will create jobs. Those job losses will bear most heavily on the most vulnerable in our society: the young, the low paid, the unemployed who will not get jobs, the women who want to return to work but who will be forced to stay at home and the small businesses that will be unable to expand.
That is not just the Government's view. It is also the view of Professor Layard. In a recent article in the Financial Times, Professor Layard commented on article 5 of the charter, which implies that all member states will have to establish a minimum wage. He stressed that such a change could have a devastating effect on the employment of less skilled people. He pointed to the high levels of unemployment, especially of women and young people, in European Community countries such as Belgium, Holland, France and Spain that all have legally binding minimum wages.
It is no accident that the United Kingdom's unemployment rate among young people and women is less than half the Community average. I note that neither the hon. Member for Sedgefield nor the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) has sought to deny for one moment the fully researched Government estimate of the cost of establishing a minimum wage, set at 50 per cent. of the national average wage. It would result in the loss of 750,000 jobs in this country. Do the hon. Members for Sedgefield and for Stretford want to be responsible for driving 750,000 people out of gainful employment?
The hon. Members for Sedgefield and for Stretford have been asked time and again whether they are in favour of the closed shop. If they are against it, I understand why they are prepared to sign article 11 of the social charter, but if they are sticking to their age-old policy of support for the closed shop, I hope that they will explain why they are in favour of both the closed shop and the social charter. The two policies are mutually contradictory. I am willing to give way to the hon. Member for Sedgefield. Come on.
The Opposition say that the social charter will have no impact on the employment of young people. In particular, they try to make a mockery of the fact that many newspaper boys run the risk of losing their jobs.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: rose—

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Member for Stretford should look at the proposals in the action programme and then consider a press report on 20 November. The hon. Gentleman should keep his feet on the ground.

Mr. Lloyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Eggar: I shall give way in a moment. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should go to Wyatt's Newsagents, King's road, Stretford and talk to the four newspaper boys whom Mr. Wyatt employs. Perhaps he will explain to them why the European Commission is looking into the future of their jobs. When he has finished explaining that to the newspaper boys, perhaps he will go down the road, knock on people's doors and explain to his constituents why they will probably find, after the European Commission's investigation, that they have to pick up their newspapers instead of having them delivered. That is the policy to which the hon. Gentleman is committed.

Mr. Lloyd: Perhaps I should tell the Minister than. I went to school with Mr. Wyatt's son, and I know the shop well. The Commission has denied absolutely that there is any truth in the nonsensical story to which the Minister referred. Moreover, the Minister's press release hit the papers on 4 November, three days after the latest draft version of the charter was published. Significantly, the following words had been added to the charter:
and subject to derogations limited to certain light work.
Those derogations apply specifically to newspaper boys and to people working at McDonalds. That is the position of the Commission and of the Opposition; only the Minister does not understand what is in the charter.

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Member for Stretford is quite simply out of date. He should look at the press release in which the Commissioner described the action programme. Two derogations are referred to specifically: one is for family businesses and the other is for acting on the stage. Is the hon. Member for Stretford saying that according to the Commission Mr. Wyatt's son can work as a paper boy but others who are not related to Mr. Wyatt cannot? He may be right, but the important question is why the Commission should be involving itself in such details anyway. Such decisions are for this House and this country. If the Government want a minimum wage, and if the Opposition want a minimum wage, we decide. We decide working conditions and so on. There is no role for Brussels in that activity.
The Opposition made a number of observations about training. The Government have made it clear that we are committed to improve training during the 1990s. We have also made it clear that we shall achieve that aim flexibly, through local training and enterprise councils. [Interruption.] I wish the hon. Member for Sedgefield would pay attention. Our approach is the very opposite of that proposed by the Commission. Article 15 of the charter says that every EC worker must have access to vocational training and to undergo such training throughout his working life. That is not acceptable to us, and it is not acceptable to the Labour party.

Mr. Blair: indicated dissent.

Mr. Eggar: It is no good the hon. Member for Sedgefield shaking his head. He may not have had time to brief himself fully since his appointment, but he should at least have read the Labour party's policy review document.

Mr. Banks: Who has read that?

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman asks who has read the policy review; it is obvious that the Opposition


Front-Bench spokesman has not read it. The policy review accepts that "excessive legalism" should be avoided, and that is a step in the right direction. The review also suggests that enterprises should be encouraged—I stress "encouraged"—to set a minimum number of training hours for each employee annually. In other words, the review says that there should not be a statutory right to training.
How can that be squared with the Commission's proposals? Does a statutory right to training suddenly become acceptable to the Labour party because it is imposed from Brussels, even though the Labour party rejected such a right in its own policy review? Is the Labour party prepared to study for years to produce a training policy, only to throw it out of the window because of a charter that comes down from Brussels? The hon. Member for Sedgefield cannot go on shaking his head. He should do his research and read his own policy review.
The Government have always said that we are fully committed to the social dimension of the single market, but that commitment does not debar us in some unique way from arguing our approach within Europe—

It being three hours after the motion was entered upon,

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [24 November],  That the amendment be made:-

The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 273.

Division No. 5]
[6.54 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cryer, Bob


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Cummings, John


Allen, Graham
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Alton, David
Cunningham, Dr John


Anderson, Donald
Dalyell, Tam


Armstrong, Hilary
Darling, Alistair


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dewar, Donald


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Dixon, Don


Barron, Kevin
Dobson, Frank


Battle, John
Douglas, Dick


Beckett, Margaret
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bell, Stuart
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bermingham, Gerald
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Bidwell, Sydney
Eadie, Alexander


Blair, Tony
Eastham, Ken


Blunkett, David
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Boateng, Paul
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Bradley, Keith
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fatchett, Derek


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Faulds, Andrew


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Fearn, Ronald


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Buchan, Norman
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Buckley, George J.
Fisher, Mark


Caborn, Richard
Flannery, Martin


Callaghan, Jim
Flynn, Paul


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Foulkes, George


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Fraser, John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Fyfe, Maria


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Galloway, George


Clay, Bob
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Clelland, David
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
George, Bruce


Cohen, Harry
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Coleman, Donald
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Gordon, Mildred


Corbett, Robin
Gould, Bryan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Cousins, Jim
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cox, Tom
Grocott, Bruce


Crowther, Stan
Hardy, Peter





Harman, Ms Harriet
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mowlam, Marjorie


Heffer, Eric S.
Mullin, Chris


Henderson, Doug
Murphy, Paul


Hinchliffe, David
Nellist, Dave


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
O'Brien, William


Home Robertson, John
O'Neill, Martin


Hood, Jimmy
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Patchett, Terry


Howells, Geraint
Pendry, Tom


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Pike, Peter L.


Hoyle, Doug
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Prescott, John


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Randall, Stuart


Ingram, Adam
Redmond, Martin


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Richardson, Jo


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Rooker, Jeff


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rowlands, Ted


Kennedy, Charles
Ruddock, Joan


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Sedgemore, Brian


Kirkwood, Archy
Sheerman, Barry


Lambie, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lamond, James
Short, Clare


Leighton, Ron
Skinner, Dennis


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Lewis, Terry
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Litherland, Robert
Snape, Peter


Livsey, Richard
Soley, Clive


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Spearing, Nigel


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Steel, Rt Hon David


Loyden, Eddie
Steinberg, Gerry


McAvoy, Thomas
Stott, Roger


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Strang, Gavin


McKelvey, William
Straw, Jack


McLeish, Henry
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Maclennan, Robert
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McNamara, Kevin
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


McWilliam, John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Madden, Max
Turner, Dennis


Marek, Dr John
Vaz, Keith


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wall, Pat


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wallace, James


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Walley, Joan


Martlew, Eric
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Maxton, John
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Meacher, Michael
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Meale, Alan
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Michael, Alun
Winnick, David


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Worthington, Tony


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Wray, Jimmy


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)



Moonie, Dr Lewis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morgan, Rhodri
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Morley, Elliot
Mr. John McFall.


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)



NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Benyon, W.


Alexander, Richard
Bevan, David Gilroy


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Allason, Rupert
Boswell, Tim


Amess, David
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Amos, Alan
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Arbuthnot, James
Bowis, John


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Ashby, David
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Aspinwall, Jack
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Atkins, Robert
Brazier, Julian


Atkinson, David
Bright, Graham


Baldry, Tony
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Browne, John (Winchester)


Beggs, Roy
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Bellingham, Henry
Buck, Sir Antony


Bendall, Vivian
Burns, Simon






Butler, Chris
Hunter, Andrew


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Carrington, Matthew
Irvine, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Jack, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jackson, Robert


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Janman, Tim


Colvin, Michael
Jessel, Toby


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Critchley, Julian
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Day, Stephen
Key, Robert


Devlin, Tim
Kilfedder, James


Dicks, Terry
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dorrell, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knapman, Roger


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Durant, Tony
Knowles, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Knox, David


Emery, Sir Peter
Lang, Ian


Evennett, David
Latham, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Lee, John (Pendle)


Favell, Tony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lilley, Peter


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lord, Michael


Fishburn, John Dudley
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Forman, Nigel
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Maclean, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Franks, Cecil
Madel, David


Gale, Roger
Malins, Humfrey


Gardiner, George
Mans, Keith


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maples, John


Gill, Christopher
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodlad, Alastair
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gow, Ian
Mates, Michael


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Maude, Hon Francis


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gregory, Conal
Mills, Iain


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Ground, Patrick
Mitchell, Sir David


Grylls, Michael
Moate, Roger


Hague, William
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hanley, Jeremy
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hannam, John
Neale, Gerrard


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Nelson, Anthony


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Neubert, Michael


Harris, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholls, Patrick


Hawkins, Christopher
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hayward, Robert
Norris, Steve


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Heddle, John
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Page, Richard


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Paice, James


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Patnick, Irvine


Hill, James
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Hind, Kenneth
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Holt, Richard
Pawsey, James


Hordern, Sir Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howard, Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howarth, Alan (Strafd-on-A)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Portillo, Michael


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Price, Sir David


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Raffan, Keith


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy





Redwood, John
Summerson, Hugo


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Rhodes James, Robert
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Rowe, Andrew
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Thorne, Neil


Ryder, Richard
Thornton, Malcolm


Sackville, Hon Tom
Thurnham, Peter


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Tracey, Richard


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Tredinnick, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Trippier, David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shelton, Sir William
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Walden, George


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Sims, Roger
Waller, Gary


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Ward, John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Warren, Kenneth


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Watts, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Widdecombe, Ann


Speed, Keith
Wiggin, Jerry


Speller, Tony
Wilkinson, John


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wilshire, David


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Squire, Robin
Winterton, Nicholas


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wood, Timothy


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Steen, Anthony
Yeo, Tim


Stevens, Lewis
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)



Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stokes, Sir John
Mr. David Lightbown and


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Mr. Greg Knight.


Sumberg, David

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8997/89 and the proposals described in the un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Employment on 24th November on a Community Charter of Fundamental Social Rights; and endorses the Government's view that the key to increased prosperity and higher living standards is the adoption of policies which stimulate further economic growth and job creation.

Mr. Frank Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. After hon. Members have been through the Division Lobby, they are hanging around outside. I have had enough of it. People who want to get into the Lobby cannot do so, because there are too many bodies outside. Tonight one hon. Member failed to get through the door because of the crowd outside the No Lobby. That is not good enough. I want the Chair to do something about the problem because it happens far too often. Tonight in particular one of my colleagues could not get into the Lobby because of the crowd.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that difficulty, which clearly is not seen from the Chair. I will see that the point is followed up.

European Community-Japan (Trade)

Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For this debate, on the Community's trading relationship with Japan, hon. Members require papers from the Vote Office to get some background to our present relationship. I went to the Vote Office and obtained copies of the papers, but I felt that there must be some mistake. On looking at the papers, I found that, on the sale, manufacture and trade of semiconductors, we will discuss a report dated 13 May 1987, which of course was before the last general election. Another report, which is on the motor industry and which is of particular interest to me, is dated 22 March 1988 and refers to Japanese relations with the Community in 1987.
Are there not more up-to-date documents? Many things have changed in the meantime, particularly in regard to car requirements. Many of the points have been resolved. I wonder how we can base our debate on such evidence when so much has changed in the intervening period. It is like debating a 1987 edition of The Daily Telegraph—it is hardly relevant.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I understand the hon. Gentleman's difficulty, but the documents to which he refers are the documents in the motion that we are to debate.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 6552/87 relating to certain imports from Japan and 5395/88 relating to trade relations with Japan; and agrees with the Government's support of Community policy towards Japan.
I share the fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) that the documents are rather outdated. I will deal with the first one rather quickly and then suggest that we debate fairly widely EC-Japan trade relations, extending them beyond 1987. I hope that, with your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, hon. Members will agree that that is the most sensible way to proceed.
The first document, which is about the prevention of deflections of trade as a result of the measures taken by the United States against Japan in regard to semi-conductors, was the result of American illegal actions under the general agreement on tariffs and trade. It was a retaliatory action which, I am glad to say, never had to be implemented. The EC took powers to impose high duties on certain products which Ministers at the time thought could be deflected from the United States market into the European market as a result of that trade dispute between the United States and Japan. I am pleased to say that those items were not deflected under the surveillance which the Community adopted, and those duties were therefore not imposed.
The total market involved was never very great—only $300 million—and the surveillance methods which the Community put in place did not reveal any major changes in the European Community market as a result. I now propose to go back to our European Colleagues and see whether we can reach agreement on removing those suspended duties from the Community legislation, and also whether we can get rid of the remaining surveillance procedures, as they are long past their sell-by date and of no particular use.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend's speech so early. He said that the Government are to go back to the Commission or the Council of Ministers and say that the duties are not necessary. One of the documents available in the Vote Office states:
the Government supports the proposed Community measures, which are solely intended to ensure that potential diversion of trade by Japan".
If the issue is irrelevant, why did the Government issue a document in support of it?

Mr. Redwood: At the time the threat was real, the British Government went along with the proposals in the European Community. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) may find it helpful to know that we think that life has moved on considerably since 1987. The British Government's present view is that the measures were not necessary. We do not wish to be in the business of building fortress Europe and we would therefore like to carry our Community partners with us in getting rid of the suspended duties and the remaining surveillance that is still in place. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that surveillance of the measures has already been reduced, and I hope that he will agree that it would be a good idea to carry on the process and to return to free trade in specified goods.
I agree with hon. Members who think that the delay in the debate on the other document is a pity. I am firmly of the view that the House has a vital role to play in scrutinising EC proposals. Where I have ministerial responsibilities for negotiating items in Europe on behalf of the United Kingdom, I will always endeavour to see that the Scrutiny Committee is advised in good time. I find it much easier to go to Brussels to negotiate with other Ministers from other member countries in the full knowledge of the views of the House. We do not wish to encourage the idea that a large number of important decisions about trade and other economic matters should take place behind closed doors in Brussels without this House first being able to peer behind those closed doors and express its views on the subjects coming up for debate in the European Community Council of Ministers.
I want scrutiny, and I value this evening's opportunity to hear hon. Members' views on trade matters relating to Japan. The Community has an important role to play in conducting many of the negotiations on our joint behalf with the Japanese.

Mr. Tony Banks: Does the Minister agree that, through economic measures, he and the EEC could put greater pressure on the Japanese in view of their appalling slaughter of whales, which is being done under the guise of scientific whaling, and their slaughter of many other potentially endangered small whale species such as Da11's porpoises? The Japanese have an appalling venal record. Would the Minister be prepared to put his weight behind the campaign to try to get the Japanese to change their ways of treating animals that are much loved and much needed among the world's resources?

Mr. Redwood: I have much personal sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I would need to check with my right hon. and hon. Friends in other Departments. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate,


other interests are involved. I will write to the hon. Gentleman when I have checked out the various views on that important subject.
The topical issues that arise as a result of the review of EC-Japanese trade can be addressed by looking at two important themes in the way in which Japan's relations with the rest of the world are evolving. First, as Japan becomes a much bigger and more important economic power, it is becoming an increasingly important investor overseas. I and many other Ministers from Community countries welcome that. Japan is taking money, management skill, technology and innovation overseas and creating jobs and new activities in countries in which it chooses to invest.
We and other member states of the Community have been beneficiaries from investment in important leading sectors in which Japan specialises, such as cars, televisions, semiconductors, machine tools and office equipment. In sectors in which Japan has a particularly strong export performance, there are things from which the Community can benefit by enjoying some of the skills and product designs which the Japanese have at their fingertips.
The second theme is that, again as Japan has grown and developed as a major economic power, it has started to expand its domestic demand and it has opened its markets to a greater extent to imports. Again, that is a most welcome development which in no small measure is due to negotiations conducted through the GATT framework and also in no small measure is due to the bilateral negotiations between the United States and Japan and between the European Community and Japan.
In each of the past three years Japan's domestic demand has expanded more than its total national product. That means that there are opportunities for countries and companies wishing to export into the Japanese market as they expand their domestic demand in response to international pressures for some degree of reflation in the Japanese economy. I am not suggesting that we have solved all the problems. However, in bilateral discussions and through the OECD, the United Kingdom has drawn Japanese attention to the continuing structural problems within the Japanese economy that affect trade patterns between Japan and the remainder of the world. Japan is recognising the force of the argument and is beginning to take action to tackle the problem. For example, how easy is it to get access to retail distribution in Japan if a company has a good product to sell? There is also a large number of subsidies and protections within the Japanese agricultural system—although, of course, the European Community also has problems with the common agricultural policy.
There are problems with the land market in Japan, but the Japanese are showing signs of wishing to make progress. There are other specific problems, which hon. Members may wish to mention, relating to constituency and other interests in, for example, leather, leather footwear, biscuits and confectionery, which attract high tariffs that we would like to negotiate down or to abolish. However, in general we have made great progress on tariffs. They have been reduced quite substantially and, in some areas, Japanese tariffs are below EC tariffs. For example, there is no tariff on cars exported from the EC to Japan, but there is a 10 per cent. tariff on cars imported into the EC. There are many other examples and the barrriers have been coming down.
As a result, the state of United Kingdom-Japanese trade is improving from a fairly poor base. During the past 10 months exports have risen by 30 per cent. while imports have risen by only 10 per cent. There are opportunities to reverse—

Mr. Win Griffiths: The Minister has given an impressive demonstration of the relative movement of imports and exports, but can he give us the gross figures for both of them?

Mr. Redwood: I have the gross figures, and I shall give that information to the House when I reply to the debate and when I have checked them with the figures in my kit bag.
The overall figures show a substantial deficit against the United Kingdom, but it can be reduced if two conditions are met. The first is if we continue the good progress in encouraging major Japanese inward investment into Britain. One of the largest items in our deficit with Japan is the trade in motor vehicles. Plans have been agreed by three Japanese motor manufacturers to construct plant that will produce 500,000 cars every year by the mid-1990s. That is two and a half times the number of cars that we imported from Japan in the last full year. There are other examples, although slightly less startling, in leading sectors where there will be more production in the United Kingdom by Japanese manufacturers that may either substitute for imports or be exported into the European Community and more widely. That will improve the trade balance.
The second way to improve our trading position is by our businesses responding to the great opportunities that have resulted from the market opening measures in Japan and the expansion of Japanese domestic demand. I cannot pretend that that is easy because the Japanese expect high quality, good design, perseverance by salesman and companies, a commitment to their market, the development of language skills so that we can talk in their own language to those to whom we hope to sell, and the highest standards of service to back the products sold. I believe that British industry is up to that challenge and that the heartening increase in exports during recent months and years is a sign that we are making progress.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I do not wish to anticipate the Minister's speech, but can he tell us how our deficit with Japan, especially in manufactured trade, compares with our deficit with West Germany, and how Japan's efforts to expand its domestic economy, to raise its exchange rate and to invest in this country compare with the efforts made by West Germany in those three areas?

Mr. Redwood: That is a very good point. The trading balance with West Germany is much larger than the trading balance with Japan. It accounts for about half of the total trading balance, so there are problems. In some ways the position is analogous with the Japanese position as there are problems with protection in agriculture and services in the German economy. In other areas there are no protection problems because we have opened the markets in manufactured trade through the EEC programme. Of course, Germany is a much more important export market than Japan because the total volumes of trade are that much bigger on both sides of the account. We value Germany as an important market for our exports, but there are achievements to be made within


the single market programme to open further the German market. There are important ways in which we can deal with the German deficit, just as we are trying to deal with the Japanese deficit.
There has been significant progress in certification and quality control for cars and medical equipment. I know that the Scotch whisky industry is pleased with the progress that has been made in bringing into balance the liquor tax on Scotch whisky and those on other whiskies. As a result, there has been a large increase in whisky exports, which are running at almost twice their level before the changes were made. I hope that there will be more good Japanese Scotch drinkers as the full effects of the measures are felt. I am sure that they will appreciate the benefits of true Scotch. They have made encouraging noises to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about how they intend to tackle the problem of look-alikes which pose as the real thing.
I hope that following the strong representations about stock exchange seats there will be some progress in due course, as there was previously when we made strong representations through the Prime Minister and Ministers. I have every confidence that there will be good news to announce, and I regret that I cannot announce it tonight.
It is sometimes argued that the secret of Japanese industrial success lies in its planning system and the special relationship between the Government agencies and the very large companies. We should view that in the context of the true genius and excellence of the Japanese economy—which is that three quarters of all those in Japanese manufacturing work in enterprises that employ 300 or fewer people. One of the keys to Japanese success in manufacturing has been the very large number of small and medium-sized enterprises which are fiercely competitive one with another and which supply the main assembly companies and trading houses that then go round the world to supply the goods that we and many of our fellow countrymen buy.
The cardinal lesson to learn from Japan is that a competitive enterprise economy, which places emphasis on quality, design and flexible manufacturing—all of which the Japanese are so good at—is at the core of export success. It is one reason why this Government are so keen on a strong competition policy. We want to emulate the success of the Japanese competitive-driven industrial performance.
The Department of Trade and Industry has played its role in encouraging business to export to Japan and in trying to help it to do so by assisting in the provision of language courses, by offering the opportunity of seminars and programmes and through trade fairs and other methods to allow British business to present its wares and itself to the Japanese buying public. We shall continue with that programme because we are keen to ensure that British business succeeds in that large and important market place.
When I look at the people coming to the West from eastern Europe, I ask myself why they are coming. I am sure that it is because they are responding to the twin magnetic attractions of democracy and the enterprise open trading system. I do not think that they are coming to take advantage of the directive on lawnmower noise. It is a misconception to think that it is simply the EC directives

and the EC programme that act as a magnet. I see in their faces and in their aspirations the wish for open democracy and free debate and the wish to be part of the broader, open trading system that has characterised the West and has built the West's success.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I am pleased that the Minister is enthusiastic about the democratic principle, but will he extend it to meetings of the Council of Ministers and support opening those meetings to public scrutiny so that its debates and discussions can take place publicly?

Mr. Redwood: I do what I can within my limited powers. I write to the Scrutiny Committee and invite its views on any issues due to go before the Council of Ministers. I always make sure that the press know the British position and the British view of how those debates are conducted because it is important that the public can participate indirectly in the process of legislation, especially now, when some important items are coming before the Council of Ministers and are being decided by qualified majority, behind the closed doors of Council of Ministers' meetings.
My conclusion is simple. The open trading system is vital to the prosperity of the West. Progress is being made and recorded in EC-Japanese relations and in building on that system and opening the Japanese market further. I shall listen to the comments of hon. Members and to any problems that they feel exist in EC-Japan trade and I shall make the necessary representations if they have a good case. We must reinforce the open trading system and ensure that the Community acts as our voice in speaking up for the virtues and values on which the prosperity of the West is based.

Ms. Joyce Quin: I welcome the opportunity to debate trade between the European Community and Japan. It is undoubtedly an important issue and of particular relevance to Britain because of our current large trade deficit, which includes a sizeable trade deficit with Japan. Of the trade deficit that the EEC as a whole has with that country, our deficit accounts for £4·8 billion, or almost one third of the EEC total.
The history of the trading relationship between Japan and the countries of the European Community is depressing. For many years there has been a large and increasing deficit, rising from 6 billion ecu in 1979 to 24 billion ecu last year, and for many years the European countries have been complaining bitterly, without conspicuous success, about the difficulties encountered by European exporters in gaining access to the Japanese market. Motor cars have been a particular difficulty. Between 1977 and 1987, Japan took 560,000 cars from the European Community, whereas 8 million of the 12 million cars imported into the European Community were Japanese.
Over the years, there have been many complaints about Japan's dumping of goods on the European Community market which has had serious effects on national economies and on particular regions within the European market. Recent examples of allegations of dumping, where proceedings have been instituted by the European Commission, have included compact discs, video tape recorders, roller and ball bearings, halogen lamps and


hydraulic excavators. That list shows the variety of products that have caused considerable concern to the European economies.
The British market has proved a particularly soft target for Japanese exporters. We have not had some of the stringent quantitative restrictions that have been imposed in some other European countries—

Mr. Oppenheim: Does the hon. Lady accept—we must face this fact in the West—that a major reason why the Japanese have been able to sell so many goods in Britain, Europe and the United States is that they have produced the goods that the consumer wants to buy, at the cost that the consumer wants to pay and of the quality that the consumer wants. Does she also accept that we have instigated a whole series of protectionist barriers against the Japanese, not least the so-called "gentlemen's agreement", which limits their car exports to this country to 11 per cent. of the market? It was introduced by the Labour Government and is maintained by this Government. Does she further accept that such protectionist devices have done our major industry no good at all?

Ms. Quin: The trouble is that, without adopting some kind of industrial strategy of our own, we shall make our position worse by simply opening up our markets still further—

Mr. Tony Banks: They do not open up their markets, do they?

Mr. Oppenheim: Has the hon. Gentleman ever been there?

Mr. Banks: Of course I have—three times.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order.

Ms. Quin: I am grateful for your intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall come to the protectionism of the Japanese market a little later, if I may.
Little seems to have been achieved for many years despite the threatening sounds coming from the European Commission and individual national Governments, but action certainly needs to be taken because manufactured goods constitute virtually all our imports from Japan, and within that area consumer electronic goods and cars are particularly significant.

Mr. Roger Knapman: If that is the case and the dangers that the hon. Lady has pointed out prove correct, does she think that the social contract will make things better or worse?

Ms. Quin: Overall, the social charter—I think that that is what the hon. Gentleman means—will make things better, but if he will allow me, I shall refer to that later, too.
There has recently been a change in the relationship between Japan and the European Community, which is the welcome increase in Japanese investment in Britain and in other EC countries. One of the main causes for that investment is the fear in Japan that, unless the Japanese invest in the EEC and have access to the enlarged market in 1992, they might be faced with a fortress Europe with which they would find it difficult to contend. Nevertheless, that investment is welcome.
In my region of the north-east, Japanese investment has given us one of our few rays of economic hope.
Unfortunately, it is a tragedy that such investment has not been matched by British investment in the regions of the United Kingdom that most need it. Although we welcome that investment, we have always said that such plants should not be mere assembly plants but should involve a high degree of local manufacture and, we hope, create a good many spin-off jobs in the local communities, supply industries and related economic activities.

Mr. Roger King: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who will doubtless welcome today's wonderful announcement by Nissan of a £31 million investment in this country, creating 350 jobs and establishing technology centres in Sunderland and at Cranfield college in Bedfordshire. This is the next phase of Japanese involvement, when they establish not only a manufacturing base in the United Kingdom, but a design centre too. Does she agree that this is welcome?

Ms. Quin: Yes, I certainly welcome that news, to which I was about to refer because it is of significance to my part of the country. It is an important move forward, because one of our worries has been that a research and development presence has not been attached to many of the Japanese economic activities that have come into the country. We have always supported the presence of research and development in addition to Japanese plant investment. That is important if we are not to see Britain and its regions become economic outposts of an economic colonial power far from our shores, whether that power be Japan, the United States or any other.
It is said that one reason for Japanese investment in Britain is simply our lower wage costs compared with other European countries. One reason why the Labour Party favours the European Community social charter is that we do not want Britain to become a low-wage economy where workers have few or no rights or benefits compared with their European counterparts. A large European market cannot be an end in itself. It is supposed to benefit all our citizens. We do not want that market to be achieved through the exploitation of our work force.
The Government should look closely at our trade with Japan sector by sector, product by product, and should study the problem areas where we seem to have become over-dependent on Japanese and other imports. Then the Government, in partnership with industry, should seek through investment, training, export support or whatever, to remedy the trade imbalance especially in those sectors where we used to be skilled, but where we have lost out in recent years. Unfortunately such an approach is diametrically at odds with the Government's economic philosophy.
When the Prime Minister was in Japan in September, she lectured the Japanese on how to run a successful economy and advised them to follow Britain's example. I wonder which aspect of the British economy the Japanese would like to copy. Would they like to copy our inflation rate, our interest rates, our unemployment or our trade deficit? I think not. Furthermore, the Japanese have enjoyed nothing like the substantial natural assets of coal, oil and gas that have been available to us during the past decade.

Mr. Redwood: Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that the Japanese have been extremely keen to follow our successful privatisation policies, and that they are well advanced with such policies?

Ms. Quin: The Japanese have not been keen to adopt our general attitude towards industry. The Japanese Government have worked in close partnership with industry to ensure Japan's economic predominance. Unfortunately, we have not done the same.
It is clear that the Japanese do not consider what is happening in Britain today as some sort of economic miracle. Mr. Terry Yamazaki, president of the world's largest machine tool company, talked in the Financial Times today about our trade deficit. He said:
I think it is a big problem for the UK. A country's wealth stands on its manufacturing … There should be a national movement in the UK involving politicians, economists and industrialists to look at the whole issue and create a strategy to produce more, particularly more value-added goods".
Unfortunately, the Government have simply rejected out of hand similar calls for an industrial strategy made repeatedly by my hon. Friends.
Sadly, a more accurate reflection of the Japanese view of our economy is the fact that, recently, they offered us aid from their Third-world budget to save one of our food research institutes that the Government wanted to close in order to save £1 million.
The shipbuilding industry is one to which the Community and the United Kingdom should have paid a great deal more attention in the past 10 years. That industry has been given a low priority in commercial relations and negotiations between the Community and Japan. The Government and the EC have taken the view that shipbuilding is an out-of-date smoke-stack industry. Tell that to the Japanese. The world order books, now healthy, show that Japanese domination in shipbuilding continues. The Japanese order book accounts for some 30·4 per cent. of the world total and Japan's share of the world market rose by 1·2 million tonnes in the third quarter of this year alone.
Contrast that expansion with the savage cuts in British shipbuilding. It is an absolute disgrace that the Government decided to close the excellent modern shipyard of North-East Shipbuilders on the River Wear. That yard was capable of winning large orders, it had interested buyers and it could have made a valuable contribution to reducing our massive trade deficit. The people of Sunderland will not forgive the Government nor lightly forget. But it is not just the shipyard workers or the people of Sunderland and the north-east who have lost out; it is our country as a whole.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Am I right in recalling that the Government were told that there would be an upturn in the shipbuilding market, but they rejected that advice and went ahead with the closure?

Ms. Quin: That was the case. The Government were told that many times, and not just by hon. Members representing shipbuilding constituencies. It is crazy to throw away and to destroy such shipbuilding facilities and it is crazy to lose the shipbuilding skills of those workers who are now redundant.
We share and support many of the criticisms that have been made of Japan—for example, the protectionist nature of its economy and the difficulty encountered by our manufacturers in participating in its large infrastructure projects. The protectionist nature of Japanese agriculture has also been mentioned, but I agree with the Minister that in the EC that is like the pot calling the kettle black.
It is still difficult for manufacturers to make their way through the retail and distribution system in Japan, and much more progress must be made. There is a clear contrast between the difficulties of penetrating the Japanese distribution and retail system and the way in which our shops are stacked with Japanese goods. Negotiations must continue and they need to be tough.
Britain and the Community must adopt different industrial policies if the trading balance with Japan is not to deteriorate even further.

Mr. Tony Banks: I apologise as I must leave the House shortly for a public meeting, but so that I do not leave the Chamber totally depressed by everything that I have heard so far, can my hon. Friend tell me of one area of economic activity or production where we have a success story in terms of trade with Japan? Other than Scotch whisky, where are we showing a balance of payments surplus in our trade with Japan? I want to know, as I want to go out cheerful from the House.

Ms. Quin: It will be difficult to cheer up my hon. Friend. I accept that there have been minor successes with whisky and linen, but when one considers the overall trade deficit that we are running with Japan, as well as our enormous trade deficit with the rest of the EC, the position is bleak. It does not augur well for the future, nor does it reflect well on the Government who have been in power for 10 years.

Mr. Alan Amos: Is the hon. Lady aware that so far this year the trade deficit between the United Kingdom and Japan is about £4 billion and that last year's trade deficit between the EC and Japan was about $30 billion? What does she propose to do about that?

Ms. Quin: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has listened to everything I said. I have repeatedly referred to the need to look at the problems sector by sector and to work out, in partnership with industry, how best those problems can be tackled. We need to spend more on training, investment and research and development. There are no instant answers to reduce the trade balance tomorrow. For 10 years, however, the Government have pursued entirely the wrong course and have created a tremendous problem for Britain and the EC.
If they have the necessary political will, Britain and the Community can start to tackle the problem of our enormous trade deficit with Japan. Before that happens, however, a different economic approach must be adopted, especially in Britain.

Sir Julian Ridsdale: I shall speak for five minutes only, as I know that a number of my hon. Friends want to participate.
I could spend a long time discussing our relationship with Japan, but first I should like to draw a far more optimistic picture than the pessimistic scene described by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin). One of our problems is that we do not have a large enough industrial manufacturing base. I say that as leader of the all-party group on engineering development.
I listened to yesterday's debate and I know what a terrific challenge it is to expand. Our industry today is in a different and much better technical state than it was in


1979, but the base is too small. How are we to tackle this problem? If we do so as the hon. Lady said, by saying that we do not want technical investment from Japan—

Mr. Win Griffiths: She said that we did.

Sir Julian Ridsdale: I found it difficult to know whether the hon. Lady was a protectionist or a free trader.

Ms. Quin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but he cannot have listened carefully to what I said. I specifically welcomed investment from Japan, and referred to the investment that had taken place in my own region and the welcome news about the research and development facility proposed by Nissan today.

Sir Julian Ridsdale: I listened to the hon. Lady's speech, which throughout was an effort to be all things to all people. There was nothing definite about it and no clear policy came through—[Interruption.] If I am interrupted any more, it will he difficult to stick to my five minutes.
How shall we make our industrial base bigger so that we can deal with the problems that face us in the European Community? We have a deficit with the European Community, particularly Germany, for the first nine months of this year of £9 billion, mainly in transport equipment. Transport equipment from Germany accounts for the same figure as that given by the hon. Lady for our deficit with Japan. Therefore, if we can, we must continue with the investment which we are getting. I welcome that new investment just announced by Nissan. Nomura has written an excellent paper called "In Depth" which deals with the problem of expanding our industrial base. It states that, between the years 1995 and 2000, we shall be able, if the present rate of investment from Japan continues, to balance our manufacturing exports and imports. That has great opportunities for our country and I wish to underline that.
Secondly, I wish to underline why the Japanese have been successful in industry. One reason is that they have bigger companies backed up, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, by smaller and medium-sized companies. However, the Mitsubishis and Matsushitas of this world are so big that the amount of money going into research and development from their profits enables the Japanese to have a far bigger research and development programme than any other country.
As a country, we must aim to make our industrial companies big enough because in 1992, with the hypermarket ahead, that will enable us to compete worldwide too. The first test must be to compete in the world markets and the second is to back up that competition with medium and smaller companies. I welcome the fact that the Government are spending more on skill and training, because it is the skill and training of our engineers which matter, and this is where the Japanese have an advantage.
I could talk for a lot longer, but I promised that I would speak for only a few moments because I wanted to underline on an optimistic note how to meet the challenge before us. If we are to deal with the sort of imports that we receive from Germany and other EC countries we must have the investment in this country to enable us to widen our industrial base. That is being done; the opportunity is there. We must encourage it.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I listened with interest to the comments of all the hon. Members who have spoken, but there are serious gaps in the approaches to the problems of both the Minister and the Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin). I shall return later to the comments of the hon. Member for Harwich (Sir. J. Ridsdale) and talk a little about the problems we have in long-term investment, research and development and training.
Before doing so, I shall address the issue of protectionism—for two reasons. First, it is raised in one of the documents that we are debating—out of date as that is, as was pointed out earlier. It seems extraordinary that the House should debate a document two years and one general election after it was published, at a time when the system is being dismantled rather than set up as the document states.
Second, it is appropriate that we should be looking at such a protectionist document when we consider what is happening in the United States. We have considerable reason to be concerned about the pressures for protectionism in that country. Unlike the hon. Member for Gateshead, East, I wish to make it absolutely clear that the Liberal Democrats fundamentally oppose them. The document refers to the Government's work to oppose what the US Government in 1987 were attempting to do. We welcome the Government's stance on that matter, although we would urge action to be taken through international bodies rather than through threatening counter protectionism. We fear the escalation of protectionist measures around the globe.
The debate currently taking place in the United States among politicians, the media and many people who are influential in that country who constantly press for greater protectionist measures against what they see as the Japanese threat is precisely the sort of development against which we should argue as we move towards the developments in Europe in 1992 and beyond.
When we look at the developments in the Pacific basin, we see that in many ways Japan will be the least of our worries. I disagree with the hon. Lady's claim that the only reason the Japanese are coming to this country is low wages. There are a considerable number of reasons, many of them associated with Japanese fears about protectionism. However, a realistic analysis shows that Japan has a high-wage, high-cost economy, and has difficulty competing with its near neighbours in many spheres in which it has traditionally excelled. We are in a rapidly changing and developing system in which we should not push for protectionism but pursue policies that address some of the weaknesses clearly inherent in this country.

Ms. Quin: I do not think that I said that the only reason why the Japanese were investing in this country was low wages. I said that it was a factor, and I did not want to see us become a low-wage economy compared to our European counterparts. I do not think I gave that as the only reason, but if I did, I did not intend to do so.

Mr. Taylor: I accept the hon. Lady's comment. I doubt whether that factor is a high priority for the Japanese. The overall competitiveness which they believe they can get from this country is significant, but significant too are the links between Japan and this country, particularly the language links—not that we speak Japanese. As we are


probably well aware, they speak good English and commonly do so. Therefore, for many reasons it is easier for them to trade from this nation.
I said that I would give some ways to tackle this problem. I shall mention two: the first relates to investment and Japan's investment structure. We cannot look at what happens in Japanese industry unless we recognise that the Japanese invest long-term and are prepared to make long-term losses, particularly when investing in overseas production plants.
I do not have an insight into the economics of the various car investment programmes in this country, but I doubt that those Japanese companies expect a payback on those investments in car manufacturing bases in much less than five or six years. British industry looks for a payback of overseas investment or other investment in two or perhaps three years. Even such time scales as those are pushing matters. We need to find the reason for that and start to address some of the ways in which we can overcome it.
I do not intend in this debate to provide all the solutions to a problem that hon. Members are just starting to recognise. However, the pension trusts and investment trusts that exist in Britain do not exist in Japan. Most shareholdings in Japanese companies are small scale and that gives the management of the companies much greater freedom to invest long-term than is possible in an equivalent situation in Britain where the six-monthly report presents a great problem. It is even more of a problem in America, where companies have to account for themselves about every three months. It is worth looking at the success of West Germany, which is probably the one European country that does not operate under the short-term pressures that exist here.
I do not claim to know how we should tackle the problem, but we should certainly address it. It is not simply a question of work practices or of Japanese work attitudes. It is the willingness of the Japanese to invest long-term in their industries. It is not simply due to the work of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry.
I said that I would deal secondly with research, development, training and education. The Minister did not address the input to industry in terms of research and development and training and, going back even further, in terms of the education of young people. It is not simply that we need to do something to rectify the trade imbalance. The problem is more basic because we are doing insufficent at grassroots level to enable ourselves to compete. As I have said, there are short-term attitudes to investment and research and development. Companies that make large-scale investments in research and development are often penalised by being taken over or broken up. The efforts to take over and break up Pilkingtons were a good example of that.
There is massive under-investment at all stages in the training of our young people. I hope that the Government are beginning to recognise the problems that that creates. Almost any industrialist that one speaks to talks about our young people coming forward without encouragement or training. They have nothing like the education of young people in the sunrise countries.
Trade figures and the economy are worrying, but perhaps the most worrying thing that has happened in the

last few weeks was the clear indication from the Secretary of State for Education and Science that he had abandoned the plans by his predecessor to double the number of people going into higher education. It is in that area above all others that we are selling ourselves short, and that means that industry is finding it difficult to attract candidates of the right calibre. I differ strongly from the Minister about student loans and other matters, but perhaps we should agree on the need to tackle the fundamental weakness that is caused because we are not investing in our future in the most important sense by developing the abilities of our young people.
The decision by the Secretary of State for Education and Science to abandon the target of doubling the number going into higher education is a tragedy and will be seen as such by future generations. The Government are removing from young people opportunities that they will never be able to accept again. Per head of population, Taiwan is now turning out more graduates than Britain. That situation will escalate and Britain will rapidly become an under-educated and under-privileged country, while nations that until recently have been considered Third-world countries will be turning out the best-educated and, ultimately, the best-paid people in the world.

Mr. Roger Sims: In speaking to the motion, I must declare an interest on two counts. Prior to my election I was employed full-time by Dodwell and Company, probably the largest non-Japanese trading company in Japan, and I retain a connection with that company and its parent company, Inchcape plc. I am also parliamentary adviser to the Scotch Whisky Association. My hon. Friend the Minister has spoken about the importance of Scotch whisky in our trade with Japan.
Japan is a unique market, which presents problems. There are certainly non-tariff barriers, some of which perhaps exist by design, while others came about simply by accident. However, they are slowly coming down. It is certainly a large and potentially profitable market, but it needs special attention.
Business men in the United Kingdom or elsewhere in the European Community cannot assume that, just because their products sell elsewhere in the world, they will sell in Japan. Japanese trading structures are different, and so are their business methods and their consumer demands. Anyone visiting Japan will probably find it a very foreign place. Not only the language and culture but even the thought processes of the Japanese people differ from those of Europeans. I say that not in a disparaging sense but simply as a fact that we must understand.
Business men must study Japan, and I urge them to go for that market. They should visit it often and be patient and careful in negotiations and in dealings. There is no need for any business man unfamiliar with the market to work on his own. Help and advice are readily available from the admirable and well-equipped exports to Japan unit in the Department of Trade and Industry. Any business man with a saleable product or service could approach one of the trading companies. They are old established and have offices in the United Kingdom. They have Japanese staff who are experienced in selling imported goods. They also have Japanese-speaking expatriates who know the market, speak the language and


can advise on presentation, packing and can also carry out the marketing and distribution of the product. Dozens of companies have successfully taken that course.
One of the more frustrating aspects of the work in which I was engaged was that, when we succeeded in establishing a product in the Japanese market, the manufacturer would say, "Thank you very much for all you have done. We shall now set up our own company in Japan." However, that is life.
One of my many responsibilities in the company was handling exports of Scotch whisky to Japan, which is the largest whisky drinking market in the world—although, alas, most of it is the domestic product. As the Minister said, sales of Scotch whisky to Japan have increased over the years. In 1988, exports of Scotch whisky to Japan were worth £88 million. The value to the end of September this year was £66 million, and there is every prospect of a substantial increase in the end-of-year figure.
As the Minister said, undoubtedly one of the reasons for that is that at last the Japanese have bowed to pressure from many quarters, including the Government and the European Community, and have complied with a GATT judgment to remove discrepancies in liquor tax on imported as distinct from domestic whiskies. In some cases the discrepancy was to a factor of seven. There remains a differential between the tax on whisky and that on gin, vodka and shochu, a local spirit.
In Japan, certain people are producing liquors that can be, and are being, passed off as whisky but are other spirits and therefore attract a tax one third of that to which true whisky is liable. It is obvious that these deceptive and misleading products are producing unfair competition to genuine Scotch whisky, for which there is no substitute. I know that representations on this issue have been made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in recent visits and by the EEC. I urge continuing pressure on the Japanese Government to comply with the GATT judgment in full and, if the House will pardon the pun, persuade them to carry out the agreement in the spirit as well as the letter.
I have been referring to liquor taxation, which applies to all products, domestic and imported. However, there is discrimination against whisky itself and, in particular, a high import duty. I accept that all nations are entitled to apply duties on imported products, but the duty on a bottle of Scotch whisky entering Japan is six times as high as that on Japanese whisky entering the European market. Scotch attracts a higher rate than other imported whisky. I hope that in his reply my hon. Friend will assure us that the Government are seeking a reduction in the import duty on Scotch whisky in the current GATT negotiations.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is a peculiar pleasure to rise from these packed Benches of eager Members coming in to hear me. I regret that the rather arcane rules of television coverage prohibit the cameras panning along to see the serried ranks of the anti-doughnut tendency, here to hang on my every word, because this debate concerns one of the nubs of British industrial problems, which is important to viewers.
I detect in attitudes towards Japan, and particularly the obsession with the deficit in trade with it, a peculiar double standard on the part not only of the Government but of

the Community. Our deficit in manufactured trade and trade generally with the EEC is running at the same scale as the deficit of the entire EEC with Japan. That is a sign of the attitudes to the problem. Why are the Government and the EEC obsessed with that deficit with Japan but unconcerned about the scale of our deficit with the Common Market? If the EEC deficit with Japan is damaging to the European economy, how much more damaging is the deficit of one single nation with the EEC? The Minister told us, quite rightly, that our deficit with Japan is half our deficit with West Germany. That is the nature of the problem, and it is unrealistic that the EEC concentrates its attention on the deficit with Japan and ignores the far more damaging effects on this country of the deficit with the EEC.
In 1970, just before we entered the Common Market, we had a manufactured trade surplus with the EEC that, in today's prices, would be worth about £4 billion, but now we have a deficit of £18 billion. That turnround of £22 billion with the EEC must mean the export of 1·5 million jobs, probably even 2 million if we take into account the jobs lost in trade with other markets. That is the scale of the damage that we have done to our industrial economy. Compared to that, concern about trade with Japan is unrealistic.
The papers that we are debating just tinker with the problem. They whinge about the widening deficit but suggest little to solve it. That deficit is just a Nippon clip-on to our deficit with the EEC. Our real problem is what to do about it. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) has rightly suggested that both Britain and the EEC need an industrial policy if we are to have the industrial renaissance about which we have heard and if we are to rebuild our industrial base in competition with countries that have an industrial policy in which Government and industry work in a close conspiracy, as they do in Japan. The dominance of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry is lessening as time goes by and it may be that its achievements are overrated, but still the co-operation between it and the banks, and between the banks and industry, to channel long-term investments so that they can ride out the unprofitable years and build up market share, is an example that we could well emulate. Instead, our obsession is short-term, and is produced by a concern about balance sheets.
As I listened to earlier speeches, I was thinking that there should be a Mitchell's law about how a country's economic success is in inverse ratio to the number of accountants that it has in top positions in industry. The Japanese have hardly any, but we are overwhelmed and dominated by them. Long-term considerations are unimportant in a world dominated by accountants, who are obsessed by balance sheets. That is one reason for our problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead. East was right to say that another problem needs to be addressed. We should concentrate much more than the Government are doing on the human capital, on training and building up skills.
The third argument that must be made and the third factor to be taken into account is the exchange rate. Throughout the world there is a trading imbalance between the Anglo-Saxon countries, and particularly the United States and the United Kingdom, and West Germany and Japan. The United States and the United Kingdom are in horrendous deficits and ours is now


between 4 and 5 per cent. of GDP, which is bigger than the American deficit. West Germany and Japan, the countries that have made a success out of losing the war, are running enormous surpluses.
The problem for the world, not just for the EEC, is how to redress that imbalance. The exchange rate must be the only available method to do it. In other words, there is a pressing requirement that Japan and West Germany revalue their currency upwards or, failing that, that the dollar and the pound come down. On the present figures, the pound would need to come down by about 25 per cent. and the dollar by as much as 20 per cent., because both are overvalued. Unless there is a revaluation of the dominant currencies, the deficit currencies have to come down. That is the only way to do it.
When it comes to redressing those terms of trade, Japan has done more than West Germany to right its balance sheets with the world. It has done more to get its exchange rate up and to expand domestic demand and by way of overseas investment in other economies—in other words, exporting some of its surplus through investment in the countries that are buying its goods. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) said, with respect to that investment—beggars cannot be choosers, and under this Government we have to be beggars—much of it is because of the Government's deliberate strategy of turning ours into a Trojan horse economy. We have lower pay, lower taxes, more deregulation and weaker unions than European economies. That makes us the entry point for Japanese firms into the EEC. That is the inducement that the Government are holding out. They are not holding out the prospects of a high-pay, high-skill economy. The investment is not a compliment to this country. I am not saying that we should not have it—I welcome it because it is essential and the mutual co-operation is beneficial—but it is coming to an economy negotiating from weakness, thanks to the Government's policies.
As I have said, we need an industrial strategy and not a hands-off policy. Under its present administration, the Department of Trade and Industry is more hands off than a Saudi cure for kleptomania. Secondly, we need training. Thirdly, we need a readjustment of the exchange rate if we are to have a more equal trading relationship. Only that will allow us to build up what we need. We need national champions to fight for the United Kingdom in all spheres of industry. We need them to take on the dominant firms that are so successful in Japan, and to a less extent in Germany. Our problem is that, in car manufacturing and engineering, we do not have the national champions that once existed. Unless the Government compensate for that by co-operating with industry and working with it, we are doomed to failure. If that happens, another nail will be driven into the coffin of industrial Britain.
We must expand our industrial base. It is too small for national viability and too small to survive. We cannot continue to buy from the world unless we produce and sell in return. The policies that are now being pursued, especially on the exchange rate, are harmful and damaging. We are talking about a national strategy that I and no one else want to see, because it will result in the strange death of industrial Britain.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: I have considerable sympathy for my hon. Friend the Minister, who must defend EEC policies which many people, including independent observers, see as blatant protectionism aimed at the Japanese. It is worth emphasising that there has been no diversion of the products mentioned in the papers before us from the American market to the British or European markets. It is worth remembering, too, that European tariffs of 100 per cent. on televisions, power tools and computers were meant to counter the tariffs that the Americans ended almost three years ago. It is extraordinary that, because the Americans did something three years ago, we must introduce countermeasures.
It is common for western politicians and journalists to accuse the Japanese of being devious in their trade policies. Bearing in mind the fact that the duties to which I have referred are not justified and that the Americans dropped theirs almost three years ago, is it not the height of deviousness on the part of the EEC to use out-of-date, finished and dropped American tariffs as an excuse for imposing a series of tariffs to catch Japanese products?
A related issue is dumping. I do not think that semiconductors have been mentioned so far in the debate. The European anti-dumping regulations are drafted so that it is almost inevitable that they will find dumping where, in fact, none exists. They have been used by the EEC as an unfair tool. Recently the Commission threatened Japanese semiconductor manufacturers with anti-dumping duties. Those threats forced the Japanese producers to come to an agreement with the Commission that they would not sell below a certain price.
That is undoubtedly a restraint on trade and an interference with the free market. It has been inflicted on the basis of anti-dumping regulations which have been commented upon by a completely independent observer, Michael Davenport. He should know a thing or two about these matters because he worked for the European Commission. In a recent report of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, he wrote:
Not only do the EEC anti-dumping duties and regulations overtly discriminate against foreign companies, but in common with other import restraining measures they ignore the damage inflicted by anti-dumping duties on the users of imported products. Anti-dumping policies should be recast before they become like the mythical whirlpool Charybdis, which insatiably sucked in every passing ship.
The European Community has been using antidumping duties increasingly in recent years. Between 1980 and 1987 it carried out 367 anti-dumping investigations against only 217 in the United States and 147 in Canada. These investigations are being targeted increasingly at the Japanese and other east Asian nations. Increasingly, the investigations are moving away from the bulk commodity products which were the subject of most investigations in the 1960s and 1970s. They are being targeted now at high-tech Japanese and other east Asian products such as televisions, excavators, video recorders and, recently, semiconductors.
One reason why the EEC has been targeting Japan with grossly unfair anti-dumping duties in recent years is special pleading by the industrial lobby. In the case of semiconductors, the main culprits have been Siemens of West Germany, SGS Thompson, a Franco-Italian joint venture, and Philips of Holland. It is worth noting that all


these companies have been substantially supported and subsidised by their national Governments and by the EEC. They have the cheek to go to the Commission and say, "Is it not awful that the Japanese have been undercutting us?" They do not mention that the real reason for the success of the Japanese semiconductor manufacturers is that, in the late 1970s and the 1980s, they were prepared to take risks. As the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) said, they were prepared to make the massive investment that was needed in research and development and in plant. They have taken western semiconductor manufacturers to the cleaners.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I tried to explain that it is institutionally difficult for our companies to invest in the long term. Had our companies taken such gambles, many investors—giant investors, who can wield considerable influence on what companies do—would have said, "This is mad investment and it should not be undertaken." That is the fundamental difference between British and Japanese companies.

Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but too much stress is placed on so-called short-termism in the West and long-termism in Japan. I agree that it is an important factor, but some people, as with the Ministry of International Trade and Industry—MITI—and the other easy excuses that are advanced for Japanese success, exaggerate its importance. I accept, however, that the Japanese have a large pool of investment available to them. That has been a significant factor in their success.
Apart from the special pleading by the industrial lobby, the other reason for the EEC's targeting of Japan by protectionist measures is that increasingly the EEC is running its own industrial strategy and policy. It is a two-pronged policy. On the one hand, the Commission is beginning heavily to subsidise certain industries. On the other, it is erecting protectionist barriers to keep out products that originate from outside the EEC.
Underlying this strategy is a feeling which is common in the West—that the Japanese have succeeded unfairly. It is considered that they have succeeded through some subsidised industry plot to undermine the west and attack western markets. It is felt that the basic policies of the Japanese have been protectionist. It is argued that an industrial strategy has been implemented by MITI to ensure that Japanese companies receive a lot of money from the Government and special considerations.
I ask the proponents of the MITI myth, as I call it, to answer the following question: if these industrial strategy policies of protectionism and subsidies work so well, why are not the industries of Communist countries—perhaps the most protected and subsidised—equally successful? If we do not want to take the example of the Communist bloc, why are not the economies of India or Brazil successful? After all, those Governments have been hugely protectionist. They have heavily controlled their economies and subsidised their industries.
I would go further and point out that hardly a nation in the west has not at some time tried industrial strategies and protectionism. I include in that list the United States, which puts itself forward as the great friend of free trade, the great liberal market and all the rest, but it is in fact among the most protectionist nations in all sorts of ways

that I do not have time to go into now. It has also indirectly subsidised many of its industries, particularly aerospace and computers.
There is a tendency in the West to exaggerate the extent to which Japan has been subject to an industrial strategy and at the same time to forget the extent to which western economies have been subject to industrial strategies. But if the Japanese industrial strategy, if we can call it that, has worked better than those in the West—or should I say if the industrial strategies and policies of the MITI bureaucrats have done less damage than the industrial strategies of western Governments—perhaps it is because MITI's policies have been more in line with the workings of the market.
Whereas in the West we have often used huge sums of Government money to subsidise and prop up unviable, failing industries that are riven with all sorts of deep structural problems, the Japanese have encouraged those industries slowly to fade away and have put the rest of their money into encouraging newer, more highly value-added, sophisticated industries. That may be why MITI's policies have done less damage in Japan than similar industrial strategies have in the West.

Ms. Quin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Oppenheim: I hope that the hon. Lady will excuse me if I do not give way. I have been asked to finish shortly.
It is also worth remembering that the Japanese now subsidise their industry far less than we do in the West. For example, spending on research and development by the Japanese Government has for a long time been far lower than Government spending on research and development in the West. It may come as a surprise to many hon. Members that most research and development in Japan is carried out by private companies.
Furthermore, the Japanese are now far less protectionist than we are in the West. People do not realise the extent to which the West is protectionist. The suit that my hon. Friend the Minister is wearing was probably made by a British or a European company protected by something called the multi-fibre arrangement, which restricts imports of textiles from developing countries. The ministerial car that my hon. Friend will be driven home in tonight was built by a British company protected by the gentleman's agreement which restricts the Japanese to 11 per cent. of the market. The Japanese do not restrict us in that way. Moreover, the company that built the car, Rover Group, has had huge subsidies from successive Governments. If when he gets home he watches part of tonight's debate on his video recorder and his television, he may not be aware that the European video recorder and television industries have been heavily subsidised by national Governments and at the same time subjected to protectionist barriers in the form of quotas against Japanese and Korean producers.
Far from us accusing Japan of trading unfairly, the Japanese should be a little more vociferous in complaining about the unfair trade barriers that we maintain against them. Western companies can and do sell in Japan if they have good-quality products and are prepared to make a long-term commitment to the Japanese market and sell properly in Japan. There is a long list of Western companies that have done well in Japan.
The real reasons for Japanese success lie not so much in industrial planning by MITI as in the Japanese industrial


system. They lie in the open-mindedness of Japanese industry in being prepared to buy in technology from abroad, compared with the attitude of many western companies that if technology is not made here they do not want to be bothered with it.
The Japanese have low Government spending, and low tax. Japan lacks complacency and feels that it must compete in order to survive. It has had high levels of savings which are taxed at a low level and so have allowed industry to invest more money. Japanese companies have been able to invest and, above all, they have treated their employees well, making them feel part of the organisation. That lesson should be learnt by management in the West.
There are great dangers in present EEC and American policy towards Japan. By erecting more trade barriers against the Japanese, and by unfairly accusing them of trading unfairly, we risk increasing tensions and splitting the world into competing trading blocks, just as happened in the 1920s and 1930s, which led to such disaster. If we want the Japanese to do some of the things that we think they should do, such as changing their policy on whales, it is about time we gave them their due for their achievements and stopped pretending that protectionism within the EEC is in any way competing against the Japanese.

Mr. Redwood: I am grateful for a few minutes to reply to this well-informed, good debate, even if it did not attract too many doughnutters into the Chamber to get on to the television screen. That may be a good thing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) gave good advice to United Kingdom firms to get involved in the Japanese market as exporters. I agree with his comments on Scotch whisky. As I said earlier, progress has been made through the equalisation of liquor taxes and there have been good results in Scotch whisky exports into Japan as a result.
I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are pressing for further action on import duty and are concerned about the differentials in the liquor tax with other kinds of spirits. We have already made strong representations on the question of look-alikes and have received certain assurances on marketing rules and the style of the product. The Government will continue to ensure that the Scotch whisky industry's views are strongly represented in Japan.
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) made some good points about dumping and the problems that arise from that. My hon. Friend is right to say that we must be careful about anti-dumping procedures and Britain always sets out two points to our fellow member states in the Community. The first is that users, as well as producers, have needs and we have to

balance those needs when looking at anti-dumping cases. Secondly, anti-dumping procedures must take place within the framework of the general agreement on tariffs and trade where there are clearly laid down rules. One reason for the strong Community objections to the United States action that triggered the document that we are debating was that the United States action was outside the GATT rules which the EC condemns.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) gave a good dissertation on why Labour remains the party of devaluation. Labour Governments have always devalued, and I am glad to see that he would recommend that to the Government. However, he should note that the Japanese have always abided by the Plaza and Louvre accords, and there was a period of revaluation of the yen as a result of those pledges.
As to the hon. Gentleman's industrial policy, it would be easier to take lectures from him if, for example, he bought a British car, but I believe that he does not. As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley said, I drive a British car and I am wearing a British suit. Anyone who believes in British industry should back that belief by purchasing British goods. That is the true support that it needs. That is its best reward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale) made some wise observations on the need to encourage Japanese investment here. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) agreed that Japanese investors are welcome in Britain and that they are investing not just in assembly but in a range of other activities including componentry, research and development and technology centres. I am sure that the House welcomes that development.
There are a number of success stories. British companies in pharmaceuticals, aerospace, high-quality textiles and a number of other areas have made the long-term commitment to the Japanese market. They have shown that they can sell into Japan by concentrating on giving good service and reliable quality, and they are examples to those British companies that have not yet taken that plunge.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East was critical of the Government's stance, but she may be unaware of the extent of the success of Opportunity Japan. She might like to know that the Japanese have praised that programme as an example of how other countries could, through their Governments, introduce industry to the Japanese market.

It being one and a half hours after the motion was entered upon, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [24 November]:—

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 6552/87 relating to certain imports from Japan and 5395/88 relating to trade relations with Japan; and agrees with the Government's support of Community policy towards Japan.

EC Shipping Industry

The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8367/89, 8368/89; and the proposals described in the un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Transport on 22nd November 1989 relating to the Community shipping industry; further notes that Community-owned shipping represents some 25 per cent. of the world fleet; endorses the Government's commitment to liberal shipping policies and to the opening of the coastal and offshore markets (cabotage) of France, Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal and its opposition to subsidies for shipping; and supports policies which will promote vigorous competitive United Kingdom and Community shipping fleets.
Tonight we are debating stage 2 of the European Community's common shipping policy, which has become known as the positive measures package. I remind the House of how we reached this stage. In December 1986, the United Kingdom presidency negotiated agreement to a package of important shipping regulations. They are designed to break down barriers that restrict the free movement of intra-EC shipping, to prevent new restrictions being erected, and to safeguard and promote competition in all sectors of the shipping market. They are important measures and provide a firm base for a common shipping policy.
When the first package was adopted at the end of 1986, the Council of Ministers asked the Commission to make proposals for the second stage aimed at the harmonisation of operating conditions for further strengthening the competitiveness of the Community's fleets. The proposals made by the Commission that are now before the House are designed to fulfil that mandate.
Proposals are described in detail in the document "A Future for the Community Shipping Industry: Measures to improve the Operating Conditions of Community Shipping". The Commission also produced a related information paper on financial and fiscal measures. Both documents have been made available to the House. The proposals are wide-ranging and complex, and it may help if I describe their main features.
The document "A Future for the Community Shipping Industry" consists of a lengthy Commission communication covering three draft Community instruments and one Commission recommendation. The first draft instrument would establish a Community ship register named EUROS. To be registered on EUROS would carry certain obligations. First, a vessel would have to be on an EC country's register already. Secondly, the owner of the vessel would have to prove a genuine economic link with the Community. Thirdly, the vessel would have to meet a number of employment requirements. In particular, half the ratings and all the officers would have to be EC nationals and their employment would have to be subject to specific provisions on collective wage agreements.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have a question for the Minister relating to annexe 3 of the Department's explanatory memorandum 8367/89 and to section 3(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. That Act refers to the owners of British ships as "British citizens". Are problems likely to be encountered

similar to those provoked by the interim injunction of the European Court of Justice with respect to section 14 of the Act?

Mr. McLoughlin: I shall certainly know what to expect when I give way to the hon. Gentleman in future. If he will contain himself for a little longer, he will see that there is no way that the Government want to accept the EUROS proposals. Therefore, I hope to allay his fears. Perhaps he will allow me to develop my speech so that he can learn why we intend taking the action that we do, which follows in a way upon the requests made to the Department by the National Union of Seamen.
The fourth requirement of EUROS is that every ship registered would have to fly the European flag in addition to her national flag, and every Euros-registered ship would also need to have additional identification marked on her stern.
Those are the obligations attached to EUROS. The main benefit proposed by the Commission is that EUROS vessels would be entitled to operate in the cabotage trades.

Mr. John Prescott: What is cabotage?

Mr. McLoughlin: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish me to explain cabotage, but if he does, I shall be happy to do so.

Mr. Barry Field: If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) does not know what cabotage is, he has no right to be an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman.

Mr. McLoughlin: I believe that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East is having a little fun.

Mr. Prescott: The Minister still has not explained the meaning of cabotage.

Mr. McLoughlin: Cabotage is the allowance of free trade between member states and between the coastal lines of those free states, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well. I am surprised at the Opposition treating this debate so lightheartedly and that they do not regard these matters as being serious. My Government take these matters very seriously, even if the Opposition do not.

Dr. Godman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I asked a serious question, and I hope to receive a serious answer.

Mr. McLoughlin: I was referring to the interventions of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East.
The second main benefit is a proposed link between the right to carry food aid with those ships registered on EUROS. It is claimed also that the EUROS concept would help shipowners to transfer their vessels between EC registers and ease recognition of seafarers' qualifications.
The second draft regulation seeks to define a Community shipowner. It accordingly sets up certain tests that would seek to establish a significant economic link between a shipowner and a member state. The key point is that it would draw a distinction between EC nationals and those companies from third countries that establish themselves in the Community.
The third draft regulation makes provision for the liberalisation of cabotage, but that is subject to a number of conditions. First, vessels would have to be on EUROS and to meet the crewing conditions that I have described.


Secondly, there is a weight limit of 6,000 tonnes, above which a vessel would have no entitlement to freedom of cabotage. Thirdly, there is an age limit for vessels of 20 years. Fourthly, there is a derogation that allows a member state to require the other EC vessels operating in its own cabotage trades to mirror its own manning requirements. Further restrictions would protect island services.
The Commission also makes recommendations on port state control, in which the United Kingdom has always exceeded the target of 25 per cent. on inspection rates.
We have studied all the Commission's proposals carefully and have consulted widely. Our broad conclusion is that the proposals would not improve the competitiveness of the European shipping industry. As to the basis of the proposals—EUROS—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport was one of a majority of Ministers who criticised that proposal at a recent meeting of the Transport Council. Clearly, the case for creating a new Community institution would have to be very strong, but the majority view of our ministerial EC colleagues so far is that EUROS would serve no useful purpose.
The proposed manning and employment conditions would increase the cost of running ships and reduce operational flexibility. We believe that it is objectionable to seek to keep non-EC nationals out of an international industry that operates worldwide. Historically, European shipowners have employed seafarers from Scandinavia, eastern Europe, Africa, the Indian sub-continent and south-east Asia. It may be the Commission's wish to impose protectionist and inefficient employment conditions, but that is not Government policy, and we will continue to fight such forms of fortress Europe.
As to the important issue of shipping cabotage, while the United Kingdom's coasts have traditionally been open to all corners, those of France, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain are reserved for their own flagged fleets. As to the Commission's proposal, it is only fair to give it some credit for producing a draft regulation, but it contains totally unacceptable conditions, introduced to protect inefficient operations in some member states. We are prepared to recognise legitimate concerns, such as the need to guarantee regular mainland to island and island to island services, but coastal trades along mainland coasts in Europe must be opened up to all Community vessels, providing of course that they meet the recognised international standards—for example, IMO safety standards. So long as they do that, there is no justification for additional conditions on, for example, the numbers of crew or the age or weight of the vessel.
Our long-standing concern at the obstructionist tactics of some other member states has led us to contemplate retaliatory action. The Merchant Shipping Act 1988 gives the Secretary of State powers to require that any operator trading in United Kingdom coastal waters or the offshore trades would have to be established in the United Kingdom. We would consider using this power only if we were forced to the conclusion that other member states were determined to prevent progress being made in agreeing a sensible Community regulation. The Government do not like the idea of retreating into defensive measures which would deny our shippers the benefit of the present very wide choice of shipping service

on our coasts, but we may be forced to take the necessary steps. We are prepared to wait to see how the Irish presidency will tackle the situation, but our patience is wearing very thin and we will not wait for ever.
The Commission sets out its approach to state aids policy in the information document on financial and fiscal measures. The treaty lays down in article 92 stiff tests for state aids to be compatible with the Common Market. It is for the Commission to police that. The information paper sets out the framework within which the Commission proposes to do that in shipping. For example, aid should not be out of proportion to the size of the problem. Aid must be transparent, temporary and on a declining scale. It must not result in creating over-capacity in the industry.
So far, so good. But the Commission seems to accept that one aim of state aids in the shipping sector would be to equalise the difference between the operating costs of employing Third-world crews as compared with European crews. That is a misguided approach.
It is as true for shipping as for other industries that subsidies often lead to a misallocation of resources, and can be a form of protectionism. It is wrong in this great international industry to use public money to preserve jobs for higher paid Europeans which could be done equally well by Third-world nationals. That is a wrong approach in principle and provides an excuse for poorer countries to introduce direct forms of discrimination against European shipping; and the potential costs to the taxpayer are very large. The USA provides an example of the counterproductive effect of subsidies. It pays a subsidy of some £150 million annually to US carriers. Despite this, only 4 per cent. of US international trade is carried in US flagged vessels; 96 per cent. is carried by foreign flagged vessels. For those reasons, we are keen to see the Commission take a rigorous view of state aids in the shipping sector. Existing state aids should be challenged, and no new ones permitted.
I think it will help if I comment briefly on the draft Council resolution described in an unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by the Department of Transport on 22 November 1989. It concerns a proposal by the French presidency to pick up priorities from the Commission's proposals and identify an agreed work programme.
Since that document was produced a number of discussions have taken place and a fresh text has just been produced. The substance is much the same as the earlier draft. However, the emphasis has changed. The presidency now seeks to order the issues into two sections. The first section lists those on which there is much common ground. The second section identifies the issues which are said to need further consideration. We are generally content with the references in the first section to port state control, food aid, consortia, research, transfer of vessels between EC registers, the 1986 package and to the recognition of seafarers' qualifications. Those are practical matters which need to be progressed.

Dr. Godman: Can the Minister give definitions of "seafarer" and "seafarers' qualifications"? Would those definitions include fishermen and the qualifications that a fisherman needs to go to sea on a United Kingdom registered fishing vessel?

Mr. McLoughlin: I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman on that question. I am sure that hon. Members would wish me to give a proper reply rather than a rushed answer from the Dispatch Box. I shall certainly check it out.
The issues on which more work is said to be needed are Euros, cabotage and state aids. We do not believe that there is any real political will behind EUROS and expect that the idea will wither away, hut the idea that cabotage should require more investigation is wholly unacceptable to us. This is a treaty obligation and it is high time decisions were taken. On state aids, we will continue to argue against the Council seeking to usurp the Commission's competence in this field, and we will continue to oppose the provision of subsidies particularly to intra-EC shipping.
With the support of the House, we will continue to argue accordingly in Brussels and particularly at the Transport Council of Ministers meeting on 4 December. I shall reply later to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman).

Mr. John Prescott: The Minister, who comes from a mining background and not a shipping background, deserves, some sympathy. One appreciates the complexities and difficulties in the shipping industry, which were illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). He asked legitimate questions, which were difficult to respond to immediately without being conversant with the problems.
The greatest concern was caused by the Minister's speech and the motion before us. Britain continues to pursue the least-cost, maximum-profit approach without taking into account factors that are absolutely critical to the maintenance of the British merchant fleet.
We have to take into account what has happened to our merchant marine and to the European merchant marine which led the Commission to intervene, not relying on market forces but reacting to the market forces that have led to the sorry situation in which Europe does not have sufficient maritime capacity to meet its own economic needs or its strategic requirements.
In examining that question in regard to the British merchant marine, let us take into account what has happened since the Government took office in 1979 and began pursuing the policy of commercial cost at any cost. Britain, as an island nation, has witnessed a massive decline in its Merchant Navy fleet, which has reduced from 1,200 ships to between 400 and 500 ships. The number of seamen is down from about 80,000 to 25,000.
The shipping industry used to be a net contributor to the balance of payments. It now costs us £1 billion a year to maintain and pay for shipping services, contributing to the present massive balance of payments deficit. Britain, as an island nation, is not carrying more than 20 to 30 per cent. of its exports and imports in its own ships. That is the economic reality at the moment. But the greatest concern is caused by the strategic requirement. Britain has a strategic responsibility to maintain the safety and the defence of these islands. For that it needs both a military and a civil Merchant Navy. If anyone doubts that, one only has to consider the recent tragic events in the Falkland Islands. A fleet of a certain size and of a certain

mixture of vessels is needed to maintain both this country's military requirements and our maritime contribution to NATO.
The Minister does not have to heed my warnings. The House is being warned constantly by the Defence Select Committee. In its 1988 report, it said:
The British Merchant Fleet continues to decline in size, as do those of our allies. We believe that the implications for our national and collective security are alarming.
To a certain extent, the Government responded to those criticisms. They thought that they had better do something about the decline of the merchant fleet; therefore, they introduced legislation to tidy up our overseas register. Dependencies such as Hong Kong, the Bahamas, the Cayman Islands and the Isle of Man offer their flags of convenience to the shipowner so that he does not have to observe the social conditions and pay the wages that are expected to be paid on a British or a European-registered ship.
The Government established what they called the Merchant Navy reserve. They said that it was a kind of Dad's Army: "We want you if there's a war, but we have no job for you in peacetime." The seamen that they so loudly praised during the Falklands conflict were essential, they recognised, to Britain's defence requirements, but in peacetime they sacked them and registered the ships abroad.
The Select Committee is concerned about this country's strategic requirements, but what has happened since its 1988 report? We have lost a further 100 ships and 5,000 seafarers. In its 1989 report the Select Committee said:
The availability of merchant shipping for defence purposes is governed by three key factors—the number of UK flagged ships, their accessibility when they are needed and the availability of a pool of British seafarers to man them. There are grounds for concern on all three counts.
The Government profess great patriotic fervour. They claim that they are defending the nation's interests and that they are the strongest on defence. However, they cannot provide an adequate Merchant Navy to meet this country's strategic requirements.
The Minister refers to pounds and pence, but he has not taken into account the strategic and defence requirements of the nation. The industry believes that we are short of 400 to 500 ships. The Minister should decide what the minimum size of the British merchant fleet ought to be. If it is greater that the present strength of the British merchant fleet, he ought to ponder how it can be increased by the provision of subsidies that will enable trade to return to the British flag, or even the European flag. The Opposition have always demanded that there should be a genuine link between the flag and the conditions on board ship. That question has been discussed at a number of international conferences.

Mr. Barry Field: If the hon. Gentleman reads the document, he will see that in a high-salaried European Community country the difference between its manning costs and those of a Third-world country is 44 per cent. and that, even in the case of a low-wage European Community country, the difference between its manning costs and those of a Third-world country is 15 per cent. How does he expect that gap to be closed when COMECON crews are now available?

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, but before I turn to that aspect I want to emphasise that factors other than cost have to be taken into account


if we are to maintain a British merchant fleet. My figures are similar to those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. They come from the Commission's document on fiscal requirements.

Mr. Barry Field: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Prescott: No. The point has been well made that the cost of manning the ships varies greatly.
Another interesting fact is that 35 of the 38 vessels that were needed for the last Royal Navy exercise were manned by Polish seafarers. According to the NATO-Warsaw pact strategy, the Poles are supposed to be on the other side, yet they are manning our ships to fight Warsaw pact ships. That might cause some concern even to the hon. Gentleman. Even he may wonder whether that is acceptable.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) put his finger on an important point: if the countries of eastern Europe join the Third world in offering low wages, the Community will have to react. I shall be interested in how it will react.
If western capital is invested in eastern Europe, if everything is manufactured in Poland and other eastern European countries and if those goods then flood western European markets, shall we stand aside and say that that has to be accepted in the name of democracy? I have a horrible feeling that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight and his hon. Friendds will be clamouring, along with many others, for an end to what they regard as unfair competition. As soon as capital is affected, there are cries from the Conservative Benches, but when labour costs and differentials are at stake, they are prepared to send the work force to the wall. That is what the debate is about; Conservative Members always argue for the protection of capital.
In the EEC generally, the decline has not been as great as in Britain. It has varied from nation to nation—ironically, depending upon the fiscal policies that have been pursued. Nations that have sought to limit the decline by offering financial incentives have been more successful in retaining their fleet. I do not have time now to go into the differences in detail, but my point is that Government intervention of one kind or another can affect the size of the fleet. That is the message: we are not helpless in this matter, and intervention can have an effect.
The documents reject the idea of flags of convenience —the idea that nations should be allowed to take the cheapest possible course. The Commission is concerned to harmonise its transport policy, especially in regard to shipping, because it takes the view that it needs a fleet. This policy is not so different from the common agricultural policy. We pay more for a Common Market tomato, potato or apple than the world market price because we take the strategic view that we should retain an agriculture policy and that we should not pay a French farm worker what a peasant in the Third world is paid. The argument should be the same for shipping, yet the Government treat it differently. We must ask ourselves why. The Community has set out its objectives, and I see no reason why the House should disagree with them.
The Economic and Social Committee of the Community is made up of business men and union

representatives from all the member states. In its statement, that committee pointed out that the objective of the policy is to
provide a sufficient incentive for Community shipowners to register their ships within the Community and to man those ships, to the highest possible proportion, with Community seafarers.
That is quite clear and it is the view of business men and trade union representatives throughout the Community.
The Economic and Social Committee is not entirely sure about the means of achieving that objective, and it is not completely convinced that the Commission's proposals are the answer. As with the social charter, on which we have just voted, the difference between Britain and the rest of the Community is that other member states do not believe that social conditions should suffer in the pursuit of a policy. They believe that there is an obligation to maintain civilised standards and employment conditions. That view is at the heart of the Community's policy of sustaining its shipping.
The Minister rightly explained some of the matters that were under discussion. He mentioned the Community shipping register and the need to show a genuine link between the Community flag and the ship's registration. I only wish that the British Government had the guts to do something similar. All that they seem able to do is to provide opportunities for our shipowners to flag out to the Bahamas, Hong Kong, and the Cayman Islands and thus gain all the advantages arising from cheap labour and less safe conditions. I have heard all the nonsense about inspectors being sent out to inspect the ships, but the evidence relating to flags of convenience is overwhelming. The shipowners lose three or four times as many ships and the ships are not properly insured. Their conditions are the modern equivalent of the conditions that prevailed in the slave trade.
We welcome the proposal to tighten restrictions and the common definition of a Community shipowner. The Community suggests that we should intervene to secure a certain amount of trade for Community shipowners who get their trade from the Community and live in the Community. The Community says, "Why should we not do that? Why should we not sustain a certain amount of trade and traffic for our people?" The process of achieving that is called cabotage. It can be done on a Community basis or on a national basis, by reserving a certain amount of trade, as the Minister honestly said. But because we have pursued with a vengeance a policy of competition, the proportion of British traffic around our coast has fallen from 60 per cent. at the beginning of the decade to about 20 per cent. No doubt the Minister would hail that as a triumph of competitive forces, but many of the countries that will not allow foreign shipping around their coasts are now taking the lion's share of the traffic and laughing at us. They talk about competition as they pinch our trade and take our jobs.
I am quite prepared to consider cargo sharing. What is so strange about that? It was the Government who talked about the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development proposals, which allow countries to retain 40 per cent. of traffic in their own imports and 40 per cent. in their own exports. We said that we would not implement those proposals. We must appear the most stupid people in the world because we are not prepared to take 40 per cent. of our cargoes which could be used to build up a fleet


to meet the strategic requirements to which I have referred. Other countries accept such a percentage of their cargoes to meet those requirements and economic aims.
There are two parts to the proposals before us. The first relates to technical matters and research and I was glad to hear the Minister say that he is prepared to discuss those issues in the early stages. With regard to the fiscal measures, the Minister makes it clear that we do not want any subsidies. That is what Mrs. Thatcher said about conditions of our entry to the European monetary system—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman means the Prime Minister.

Mr. Prescott: Of course, the Prime Minister; that woman at No. 10.

Dr. Godman: Just call her the Queen.

Mr. Prescott: Is there any advance on that?
The Prime Minister has made it clear that she does not want any subsidies and we have seen the consequences of that for our merchant fleet. With regard to the range of fiscal measures on offer, the British industry wants the subsidy. British shipowners want the subsidy of interest rates and for buying ships. They do not want to pay a reasonable cost for labour; they want to get their labour from the cheapest possible source. That is the heart of the argument.
If we consider the international nature of the operating costs of vessels, it is clear that the insurance, building costs, interest rates and fuel costs are pretty much the same for all operators. The major difference is the social cost. Labour is much cheaper if it comes from the Philippines, Bangladesh or India. The United Kingdom wage rate is very low at $800 a month, especially when we bear in mind the International Labour Organisation convention which states that we should be paying at least $660 a month. However, Bangladesh pays $45 a month, India pays $90 a month, Pakistan $220 a month and the Poles $600 a month. There is no way we can compete against that unless, as some countries do, we consider taxation and national insurance arrangements and then make up the differential between the two.
That is the choice for Europe. We can have an international fleet of a certain size which we can determine. However, it cannot be operated cheaper than a fleet with labour taken from elsewhere in the world in which the seamen do not have to be sent back to their families every few months, they are paid low monthly wages and there are no overtime payments or high national insurance payments. All those factors lead to cheaper labour. The same argument applies to agriculture, as I said earlier.
According to the documents, there may be differences as high as 20 per cent. in the operating costs in Community shipping, and the documents refer to Germany and Cyprus. The Commission's evidence is that the difference can be as high as 20 per cent. although it may be as low as 5 per cent. That is the differential. Are we prepared to pay that price? The Opposition believe that we must answer that question. The issue can be considered in terms of tax, national insurance and interest payments and several countries have done that.
The Opposition reject the view put forward by the Freight Transport Association, which stated:

The question of ownership of a particular vessel, or the flag which it is flying, are of little or no significance compared to the freight rate offered and the standard of service provided. Commercial patriotism is simply not a relevant factor in the decision-making process.
No doubt FTA officials were on the docks when our ships returned from the Falklands and they were waving their little papers welcoming the British seafarers back. Those seafarers had done a damned difficult job in the Falklands and the House rightly praised them. However, they cost a bit more in terms of insurance and they deliver a higher standard than seamen from Hong Kong, Singapore or Bangladesh.
We must decide whether we want a merchant fleet to meet our economic requirements for the balance of payments or for our strategic requirements. We must decide whether we are prepared to pay a little more for it. The motion states that one choice is opposition to subsidies for shipping to support policies which promote vigorous competitive United Kingdom and Community shipping. However, the evidence is clear in Britain. I refer to the loss of 1,000 ships and the loss of 60,000 seafarers —an inadequate fleet to meet our strategic requirements. That is the price that we have already paid for the incompetent ideological bullies of the Government. Britain needs a merchant navy, as does Europe. It is about time the Government were a bit more patriotic about the British Merchant Navy fleet. That is why Opposition Members oppose the motion.

Mr. Barry Field: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) had much to say about civilised behaviour, but he did not have the courtesy to observe the usual custom in the House of welcoming my hon. Friend the Minister to his first debate on EEC shipping matters. The hon. Gentleman has earned an unenviable reputation for hijacking every transport disaster around the country and trying to use them for political purposes. He made the remarkable statement that the Government have taken a strategic view of the common agricultural policy, and said that we supported higher-priced EEC potatoes and other vegetables because we thought that there was something strategic about the CAP. It was exactly the reverse. The Government have striven hard to break down the protectionist CAP. We have worked extremely hard and have spoken loudly in Europe about that point. But that is not the point of the debate.
I received a letter from my Euro Member of Parliament in reply to a letter that I wrote to him on 13 November, asking him why snails had been re-categorised as fish in the EEC. I gather that snails were originally categorised by the EEC as vermin, but as they are increasingly popular as food and as snail farming has expanded, they had to be categorised as fish or meat. The reason for choosing the fish category is that, as a mollusc, a snail is more akin to shellfish than to a vertebrate animal such as a cow or sheep. Hon. Members may wonder what on earth that has to do with a shipping debate—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I can see you nodding in agreement, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I was just looking at the motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. Field: The speed of a convoy is only as good as its slowest vessel. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, we have met obstructive tactic after obstructive tactic in the EEC in trying to break down the cabotage about which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East appeared to know so little.
If Eros is the statue of love, EUROS is definitely the Marie Celeste of bureaucracy in the EEC. The hon. Gentleman had much to say about the fact that the Government favour the protection of capital and not of employees. The reverse is true. Let us examine the ethos behind EUROS. There are about 320 million citizens in the EEC. Between 1980 and 1986, 138,000—45 per cent.—of the seafaring jobs were lost in the EEC. The point of EUROS is to try to support EEC national seafaring jobs in a Community of 320 million people. It is out of all proportion to the size of the problem.
As I said earlier. the difference between Third-world manning costs and costs in a high-salary EEC member state is about 44 per cent. Even against a low-salary EEC member state, such as Portugal or Greece, there is still a 15 per cent. differential—and, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East admitted, that is before COMECON really gets going in providing crews to obtain hard currency. There is no way that this Government or the EEC as a whole can chase the ever-decreasing manning costs in Third world countries. It is like a dog trying to catch its tail.
The hon. Gentleman criticised the protection of capital. If he had read the documents he would have seen an illustration of a Dutch bulk carrier built in 1986. The breakdown of figures is 21 per cent. for crew costs, 19·6 per cent. for fuel and 41·3 per cent. for capital. The capital is the most expensive item in the shipowner's overheads. It is no longer manning, although we have a long way to go in dealing with that.
There is a small shipping company in my constituency one of whose directors is Dutch. It continually reminds me, and I continually write to remind Ministers, that if that company were to re-flag for a variety of reasons, under the Dutch flag, it would mean one less deck officer, because the Dutch manning requirements for the bridge are less then ours. One concern of the Ship Repairers and Ship Builders Independent Association is the level of the intervention fund and the way that it will be fixed next year. There will be an EEC meeting on 20 or 21 December to consider the shipbuilding intervention fund for next year. There is every reason to believe that the American shipbuilders association will lobby the EEC to try to persuade us to reduce that intervention. The capital costs and the level regime for capital subsidy is one of the aims of the EUROS programme.
I am pleased that the shipyards in my constituency have done very well out of the shipbuilding intervention fund. We have succeeded in selling ships in difficult areas where previously that was not possible. We have taken two ships to Naples and we have just obtained an order for replacement vessels—they were originally Italian-built—to service the Isle of Wight ferry route. Associated British Ports has awarded the contract to an island yard now that it is in the Red Funnel group. I am delighted that we are building ships on the island for our own use.
There are a number of objectives in Euros, and one mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East was that of strategic importance. I have always believed that that argument has long since been lost. I have

said that to the General Council of British Shipping and I peddled it around before I came to this House. I was a member of the Territorial Army and one of my last jobs was in the US-UK lock. I have run the shipping plans for the reinforcement of Europe [Interruption.] I have run them in an exercise. I know the amount of shipping required and the way that it jigsaws together. With the Berlin wall coming down and the different regime in eastern bloc countries, the hon. Gentleman will not win his argument. Indeed, the European Parliament and the European Community cannot win that argument for much longer.
Euros contains a perceptive and pertinent point that we should address, but which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East did not pick up. I refer to the balance of payments—

Mr. Prescott: I did pick it up.

Mr. Field: Not really, when one bears in mind what the hon. Gentleman said about the protection of capital, not of labour. I should like to focus on the balance of payments. Although I am, of course, open to the accusation of being an opportunist, I stress that I put this point to my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) when he was at the Department of Trade and Industry and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) when he was Secretary of State for Transport.
If one added together the shipbuilding intervention fund, the business expansion scheme for shipbuilding and all the other fiscal measures that are available, it would be possible to produce a reasonable package to encourage shipowning in this country. The cost of being on the British register and the diverse assistance that we give at the moment are not brought together sufficiently to give a focus to and encourage British shipowning.
The Norwegian register has grown, mainly from the purchase of second-hand ships as a result of the fiscal regime that has recently been adopted there. That is an example of what could be done if an altogether different regime were adopted here. The Treasury is often used as the excuse for not altering policy, just as we use the Whips Office as an excuse for not attending the mother-in-law's birthday party. I advise my hon. Friend the Minister that this matter must be resolved. I notice that when my right hon. Friend responded to the EEC, he said in several instances that the Secretary of State for Transport was responsible, but that is not entirely true. Some responsibility rests with the Department of Trade and Industry and some with the Treasury. I do not want a great new Ministry to be created for this, but we must draw together all our fiscal facilities. If that happened, I believe that British shipowning could be encouraged.
If one listens to the General Council of British Shipping and to the litany of assistance that other EEC countries give their shipbuilders, one begins to realise why we need to pool all our resources. Accelerated depreciation is an option available in Belgium and the Federal Republic of Germany. Greece operates only fixed tonnage taxes, with no corporation tax. Tax-free reserves are available in the Federal Republic of Germany and the Netherlands. Soft loans are available in Belgium and direct investment subsidies are available in France, West Germany and the Netherlands.
I was interested to hear my hon. Friend mention port state control. Our enforcement of port state control embodies some of the highest standards among the EEC member states. Although the old arguments about flagging and rust-bucket ships are now slightly hackneyed—some of the flagged-out fleets have recently had some investment —if our EEC partners were to adopt the same level of port state control inspection, with the same degree of professionalism that is found here, I have no doubt that it would remove several ships from EEC trade.
The construction of technical ships is also important to shipbuilding and shipowning. No previous specifications are available for such ships, but our yards have successfully specialised in their manufacture in recent years. My hon. Friend's officials are responsible for supervising the building and specifications of those ships. Recently I was aboard a highly technical Dutch ship, where all the steel and many of the fittings were British manufactured. We did not win the order for building that ship in this country, however, because when the owners discussed it with the yard they found onerous requirements set down by the Department—down to the choice of the linoleum floor tiles. They decided that they could not afford to build that ship in this country given that each Department inspector could lay down the specifications required. My hon. Friend should address that point.
I have already mentioned the business expansion scheme operated by the Treasury; I understand that between £1 million and £1·5 million is available. These days one cannot buy a yacht for the Whitbread round-the-world race for that money, so the scheme does not represent effective fiscal management.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has said that he will not put up with the obstruction of cabotage. The intended function of EUROS could be put to one side if cabotage was removed. It is nonsense that British passenger liners cannot collect passengers from Greece, yet we allow Greek liners to call in at British ports to collect holidaymakers and those who have transferred by flight. We must get to grips with that problem.
I listened with considerable attention to what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said about Government policy. On 11 September I was amazed to see this remarkable statement from him in the Financial Times:
A Labour Government would probably set up a state-owned merchant shipping company as part of a programme to reverse the decline of the UK fleet".
I congratulate the Minister on his perception in holding this debate today when we have had an announcement from Sea Containers, a Bermuda-registered company, that it plans to sell its British ferry interests on the Isle of Wight routes to a British-based company, Radiant Shipping. That shows that the sun is still shining on the red ensign.
It obviously escaped the attention of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East that we had a state-owned shipping company, Sealink. That company's cross-Channel routes were so awful that travelling on a French state-owned cross-Channel ferry was like travelling on the QE2 luxury liner. The Sealink ferries were awful, but the hon. Gentleman wants us to return to state subsidisation, poor-quality service, grubby ships and awful catering. Those ships, now in private enterprise, are clean and well turned out, so much so that British passengers complain when they travel on the SNCF ships. The other day, Sea Containers obtained 49 per cent. ownership of those

SNCF ferries so that they can be reliveried and redesigned for better service. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East would have us return to a policy of state subsidisation and all that that entails.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I shall put the record straight regarding the graceless comments made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) about the usual courtesies extended to a new Minister. When the Minister made his maiden speech as Minister for Aviation and Shipping on 25 October he was welcomed from the Dispatch Box. Incidentally, he said:
The order gives effect to an interim order of the president of the European Court of Justice … The interim order by the court requires the United Kingdom to suspend, until judgment in the main proceedings, the application of the British nationality requirements for registration of certain fishing vessels set out in section 14(1), (2) and (7) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988."—[Official Report, 25 October 1989, Vol, 158, c. 993.]
My earlier question to the Minister was whether it was likely that section 3 of that Act, referring to the British ownership of merchant ships, would come up against the European Commission's hostility and finish up in the European Court of Justice. I am sure that the Minister, given his courtesy, will respond to that question. I am delighted that I have his attention.
Paragraph 5 on page 2 of the explanatory memorandum refers to maritime research, and one matter which is to be subjected to research includes the improvement of safety and work conditions of seafarers. Will the research include the working conditions and safety of fishermen? From 1984 to 1988, 135 United Kingdom registered fishing vessels were lost as they went about their extremely hazardous business. When will the Minister introduce a regulation on the carriage of immersion suits on all shipping vessels more than 10 m in length? All French fishing vessels are bound by that regulation. Why does it not apply to British ones?
The Government's dilatoriness over the review of the fishing vessels safety provisions rules 1975 deeply disturbs me. My criticism is directed not against this Minister, who has not been long in the job, but against his predecessors. When will the procrastination and prevarication end and the review be completed? I have been asking questions since Mr., now Sir Albert, McQuarrie introduced his Safety at Sea Bill in 1985.
Referring to the document 8368/89, I repeat the question about the definition of a seafarer. Will fishermen's qualifications be part of the European Community-wide recognition of seafarers' qualifications? If not, why not? In some ports in Scotland, if vessels are decommissioned or tied up for good because of the Government's obligations under the multi-annual guidance programme set out by the European Commission, some fishermen could find work on coastal and other such vessels if we were to achieve a fair and equitable system of cabotage. That is an important question, and I hope that the Minister will give it the serious attention which it requires.
The Minister knows that, under the multi-annual guidance programme, the United Kingdom has to shed more than 20 per cent. of its registered fishing fleet. What will happen to the fishermen who are ditched along with their vessels? The term "seafarer" should include registered fishermen. If they have the qualifications to crew fishing


vessels as they go about their dangerous work, they surely have the qualifications to man a coastal vessel as it darts around the islands and mainland coastal areas of the United Kingdom.
Annex 4, paragraph 2, of the same document deals with the derogation that seeks to maintain public services, that is to say, island to island public ferry and cargo services and mainland to island traffic. As I am sure the Minister will readily acknowledge, such services are extremely important to Scotland because its island communities could not survive without the services provided by the famous Caledonian MacBrayne Ferries and other ferry services. That is readily acknowledged by the Scottish Office.

Mr. Barry Field: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Godman: No, I am dealing with too important a matter to give way. The hon. Gentleman should sit down. The hon. Gentleman would not give way to me, and I am returning the courtesy.
Those services are very important to Scotland's island communities and no doubt they are important elsewhere in mainland Britain and even in the Isle of Wight. The Minister must fight to maintain the derogation. It is important that we do not allow other companies to enter and offer cut-price services and hence destroy a fine Scottish ferry service.
I look forward to the day when we can have a liberal system of cabotage. Such a reasonable and equitable system would provide work not only for seafarers but for others. It would lead to perhaps two or three score more coastal vessels darting around our coastline and that would lead to more jobs.
I direct the Minister's attention not only to our seafarers but to our shipyards, especially those which specialise in the building of small cargo vessels. One of the finest such yards is in my constituency. I refer to Ferguson's shipyard in Port Glasgow, which must surely be one of the finest specialist small yards in the United Kingdom. I should be delighted if the Minister could help to direct work to that yard.
I have not driven the Minister too hard by a long chalk, and my last question is about the European Community's shipbuilding intervention fund, the sixth directive. How do the Government view that fund? It is a system of aid that is of major significance to the United Kingdom's shipbuilding yards. They cannot hope to compete against the yards in south-east Asia and elsewhere without the assistance of that fund. I should like to hear the Minister's opinion about where the Government stand on the need to continue the shipbuilding intervention fund. If it is to continue, will it stay at the same level, will it be reduced, or will it be increased?
Does it not make good sense, if European Community funds and domestic funds are used in the building of ships, that the services and materials purchased by way of that fund should be purchased from within and not outside the European Community? I can give a concrete example. Harland and Wolff is building shops for the Fred Olsen line. The engines for the ships should be purchased from a United Kingdom marine engine builder. One that could do it without any problem is Clark Kincaid of Greenock.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I shall be brief because we wan to hear the important winding-up speech. I should have thought that more hon. Members would be present, because shipping is an important subject. Hon. Members do not turn up for what they consider to be a low-key debate but I think that this is a high-key matter. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) takes a specific interest in the topic and is sponsored by the National Union of Seamen. I asked my staff to phone the NUS offices and we were told that the hon. Gentleman had been briefed this morning, and he was the only Member whom the union briefed. It may respect the hon. Member, but I am a union member as well and I should have thought that the NUS would give me some information.

Mr. Prescott: If that is true, it was wrong. Our union usually briefs everyone; a number of Conservative Members have said that, and the Minister referred to it. I shall see that this does not happen again, and I am sorry that it happened on this occasion.

Mr. Fearn: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I am new to the topic and I wanted to find out what the union felt. Perhaps in future it will let me have that information. However, we are both speaking on the same lines.
My interest in, and knowledge of, shipping arises from the fact that my constituency borders the Mersey. Shipping in the Mersey is very important, although there is much less of it now. My local authority of Sefton includes the freeport of Liverpool, which is doing very well. Will the Minister make clear whether what we are discussing will have any bearing on the operation of free ports? Perhaps he will enlighten me, because I am not sure whether this matter has a bearing on free ports and the one in Liverpool would be interested to know.
I note that the Government have chosen to use their own statistics to put a positive light on the shape of the shipping industry. Although there may have been some improvement in the past year, the statistics provided by the EC working group should not be ignored. They highlight a dramatic decline in the shipping industry in Community countries over the past eight years. The tonnage of Community merchant fleets of ships registered with member states halved between 1981 and 1988. When taking into account vessels registered outside the Community but controlled by Community-based companies, the European fleet is down by 28·3 per cent. in 1987, in comparison to 1981. This cannot be blamed on a general decline, as, in the same priod, the world fleet declined by only about 8 per cent.
Competition from countries outside the Community, including Third-world and developing countries where costs tend to be much lower, has led to measures aimed at reducing operation costs being taken by member states. Because of their uneven application, these have heightened the competition between member states. This probably works to the disadvantage of the Community as a whole. Another aspect of this competition is the expansion in offshore or international registers by shipowners wishing to take advantage of lower registration costs and little or no taxation or using non-Community seafarers to reduce wage costs under poorer conditions.
I was most interested to see that by the end of 1987 there was more tanker tonnage registered in the Isle of Man than in the United Kingdom. The expansion in the


use of crews made up of those other than member state nationals, or even Community nationals, raises another issue of concern, which is defence. Market forces may provide adequate merchant shipping to meet consumer demand, but who owns, operates and controls merchant ships at a time of national crisis?
Present world events may be welcomed and may lead to the conclusion that the danger of war between the super-powers has receded, but there is no guarantee that that is so. There is certainly no guarantee that another Falklands war will not arise. I sincerely hope, however, that that is not the position and that another war of that sort can be avoided, as I believe the Falklands war could have been. It is important that there are adequate numbers of merchant ships and trained national seafarers at the Government's disposal to meet a national crisis and to meet NATO commitments.
The proposals in the documents, especially the proposals to have a Community register, may go some way to meeting our concern. I am aware that the strict manning conditions attached to a European register of shipping —EUROS—raise concerns that it will act as an impediment to the objective of greater competitiveness of the Community fleets. We should not lost sight of the many social and economic advantages that the Community gains from the employment of Community nationals.
Perhaps more importantly, I support the aim to acquire European standards that embody high technical and safety requirements. I believe that we should be arguing for a high and uniform set of standards to apply to all ships sailing in European waters and into European ports. I should like to see the Commission's work devoted much more to these aims. I welcome the opening of the coastal and offshore markets, and hope that Britain will find that they work to its advantage.
The Government could do more to help our industry. I have no doubt that the British shipping industry does not compete on equal terms with the industries of the rest of the world. In many instances, it works at a disadvantage to most of the countries within the Community, especially in terms of taxation and manning costs. Countries that have focused on these matters in recent years include Denmark, Germany and Norway, and they have all seen a revival of their national fleets. Perhaps it is time that the Government considered ways of reducing manning costs through the remission of taxes and national insurance costs in a way that benefits the employer as well as the seafarer.
I welcome moves to harmonise conditions and practices in the interests of safety and of European unity and strength. I recognise, however, that proposals in the documents before us raise certain pointed questions. There is concern about whether the proposals meet the objectives that are set out. In the meantime, I hope that the Government will consider introducing their own measures to make the British shipping industry more able to compete on an equal footing with the industries of the rest of the world. My right hon. and hon. Friend and I will not be supporting the motion.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: I shall be brief, as I know that the House wants to hear the Minister's response.
I was disappointed by the Minister's opening speech, which suggested that he is presiding over the raping of the merchant fleet. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) talked about the decline of British shipbuilding. That decline began in the post-war period, and the cause of it was the lack of investment in the shipyards. Investment came far too late and on too small a scale from the investors to secure a future for the yards. For example, Cammell Laird, on Merseyside, was still working with gear that dated back to the 1930s, in the post-war period. British capital was not prepared to invest in them. When there are no ships, there are no jobs for seamen. Those were the twin responsibilities of the Government.
The industry appears to have been dismissed. I was a seaman at sea in the SS Crispin when the war started and I know the importance of a strategy for the merchant fleet. At that time, the world and his wife knew that Germany's strategy was not about the Army or the Air Force but to blockade Britain so that ships could not get through and Britain's economy would be strangled and her war efforts defeated.
Like the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn), I do not want to see a return to those days, but there are other reasons why strategies should be looked at. Britain could be affected by wars that have nothing to do with Britain. If ships in the Suez canal or the Panama canal or in other parts of the world are affected by war, that will have a direct effect on Britain and we would need our own fleet, manned by our own people, to sustain Britain in such circumstances.
British seafarers and the British merchant fleet have had a glorious history. British ships were once the pride of the world. Britain has built ships for almost every country. It is a sad day when we see it dismissed, as we have done tonight, with such lethargy from the Conservative Benches. I hope that the next Labour Government will ensure a revival of ship repair and shipbuilding so that our seafarers can be employed once again and regain the stature that they had in days gone by.

Mr. McLoughlin: This has been an interesting debate for a number of reasons. First and foremost, we have heard from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) a number of criticisms of the way in which the merchant fleet has declined. But he consistently fails to tell us what he would do about it.

Mr. Prescott: Read our document.

Mr. McLoughlin: I should have thought that that document would he disowned. According to theFinancial Times on 11 September, it says that the scale of the problem is so great that only a state-owned shipping company could ensure that the United Kingdom could maintain a big enough fleet for the economic and defence requirements. There we have it. The Labour party would offer us a state-owned shipping industry.

Mr. Prescott: I sent the hon. Gentleman's Department a copy of "Moving into the Nineties", so the hon. Gentleman need not rely on press cuttings. He can see what it says. Many of the proposals that it contains are the same as those coming from the Commission. The Commission recognises that we shall need to reverse the decline in shipping. We recognise that, and that is why our policy is identical to the Commission's.

Mr. McLoughlin: As I said earlier, we are concerned that some of the Commission's proposals will create a fortress Europe. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want that. When most of eastern Europe is removing barriers, it seems rather strange for western Europe to be erecting them, and we would not want that.
There was general acceptance of the Government's line on cabotage and the Government need to go forward on that. The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) seemed to be under a misapprehension that the freedom of cabotage already exists. Unfortunately, it does not. Much work remains to be done, but the Government are determined to see progress on that important measure.
To put the matter into perspective, it is right to say that we have the second largest fleet in the Community and overall the Community fleet represents some 25 per cent. of the world fleet. It is no good constantly complaining about the size of the merchant fleet and then expecting it to be able to recruit members. We must be positive about the advantages and opportunities of joining the merchant fleet. It is no good continually complaining about the lack of recruitment and then decrying the industry at every opportunity.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East referred to the comments of the Defence Select Committee and argued that the number of merchant ships currently available to support the Royal Navy and to meet our NATO commitments is inadequate. The Government do not agree with the Select Committee's view. Although the size of the British fleet has declined from its glorious period in the 1970s, British-owned tonnage today still stands at 15·5 million deadweight tonnes. The problem is less of hardware than of ensuring that there is a supply of trained officers and crew. I am glad that the training measures we introduced in 1988 have contributed to a significant improvement in the number of cadets entering the Merchant Navy. The latest figures show an intake so far in 1989 of 460 compared with 110 in 1987. However, I remain concerned that new blood should enter the service, and the Government will continue to monitor the situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) made a constructive and useful contribution, for which I thank him. Not least among the points he raised was that relating to the intervention fund. That matter is one for the Department of Trade and Industry but I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) also referred to the intervention fund, and raised the question of fishing vessels. Although the debate is not concerned solely with fishing vessels, the hon. Gentleman made a number of important points. He referred to an old friend of mine, Sir Albert McQuarrie, whom I sat next to when he was a Member of this House. I shall take on board the hon. Gentleman's points and will respond by letter.
I welcome to debates on this subject which he joins at almost the same time that I do, the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn). I am sorry that he experienced problems in obtaining some of the information that he required. I am not sure from his speech whether or not he supports EUROS. It has met with very little support, if any. It certainly does not have the support of the National Union of Seamen, and the Government have several misgivings about it. I do not believe that it holds any

answers or that it is a serious option which will make any progress. Certainly a number of bodies have refused to give it their backing.
Although the debate has been short, it has been wide-ranging, and it will certainly help to send some messages and to support my hon. Friend the Minister of State who is to attend the Transport Council meeting next week.
We must make some progress on cabotage. I shall not add to my earlier remarks, but if we do not make progress with that aspect sooner or later, the Government will have to consider what action they should take to try to force the issue and make the Commission address it properly. I look forward to future debates. It is certainly an interesting learning curve. I invite the House to support the motion.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 79.

Division No. 6]
[10 03 pm


AYES


Allason, Rupert
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Amess, David
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Amos, Alan
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Kilfedder, James


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Knapman, Roger


Atkins, Robert
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Baldry, Tony
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Benyon, W.
Knox, David


Bevan, David Gilroy
Lee, John (Pendle)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Boswell, Tim
Lightbown, David


Bowis, John
Lilley, Peter


Brazier, Julian
Lord, Michael


Bright, Graham
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Maclean, David


Buck, Sir Antony
McLoughlin, Patrick


Burns, Simon
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Burt, Alistair
Mans, Keith


Butcher, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Mills, Iain


Chapman, Sydney
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Davies, Q. (StamCd &amp; Spald'g)
Moate, Roger


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Monro, Sir Hector


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Morrison, Sir Charles


Durant, Tony
Neale, Gerrard


Emery, Sir Peter
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Favell, Tony
Norris, Steve


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Page, Richard


Fookes, Dame Janet
Paice, James


Forman, Nigel
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Patnick, Irvine


Forth, Eric
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Fox, Sir Marcus
Porter, David (Waveney)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Gill, Christopher
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Gow, Ian
Rhodes James, Robert


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Rowe, Andrew


Ground, Patrick
Ryder, Richard


Hague, William
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Shelton, Sir William


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Harris, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Haselhurst, Alan
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hawkins, Christopher
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Speed, Keith


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Squire, Robin


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Stevens, Lewis


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Hunter, Andrew
Summerson, Hugo


Irvine, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Jack, Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Janman, Tim
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)






Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Widdecombe, Ann


Thorne, Neil
Wilshire, David


Thornton, Malcolm
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thurnham, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Wood, Timothy


Waldegrave, Hon William
Younger, Rt Hon George


Walden, George



Waller, Gary
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Mr. Stephen Dorrell and


Watts, John
Mr. Michael Fallon.


NOES


Allen, Graham
Livsey, Richard


Anderson, Donald
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Armstrong, Hilary
Loyden, Eddie


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
McFall, John


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Beggs, Roy
McKelvey, William


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
McLeish, Henry


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
McNamara, Kevin


Buchan, Norman
McWilliam, John


Buckley, George J.
Martlew, Eric


Caborn, Richard
Maxton, John


Callaghan, Jim
Meale, Alan


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Michael, Alun


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Cousins, Jim
Morley, Elliot


Cox, Tom
Murphy, Paul


Cryer, Bob
Nellist, Dave


Dalyell, Tam
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dixon, Don
Parry, Robert


Duffy, A. E. P.
Patchett, Terry


Eadie, Alexander
Pike, Peter L.


Eastham, Ken
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Prescott, John


Fearn, Ronald
Quin, Ms Joyce


Fisher, Mark
Redmond, Martin


Flynn, Paul
Ruddock, Joan


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Skinner, Dennis


Galloway, George
Snape, Peter


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Spearing, Nigel


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Hinchliffe, David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Home Robertson, John
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Wall, Pat


Howells, Geraint
Wallace, James


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Worthington, Tony


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)



Kirkwood, Archy
Tellers for the Noes:


Lambie, David
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Lamond, James
Mrs. Llin Golding.


Litherland, Robert

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8367/89, 8368/89; and the proposals described in the un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum

submitted by the Department of Transport on 22nd November 1989 relating to the Community shipping industry; further notes that Community-owned shipping represents some 25 per cent. of the world fleet; endorses the Government's commitment to liberal shipping policies and to the opening of the coastal and offshore markets (cabotage) of France, Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal and its opposition to subsidies for shipping; and support policies which will promote vigorous competitive United Kingdom and Community shipping fleets.

Mr. Keith Vaz: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Among the business that we were to have discussed this evening was the draft Local Government Act (Competition in Sports and Leisure Facilities) Order 1989, but the motion relating to that order has not been moved. My local authority, Leicester city council, was concerned that I should raise a number of points because the order deals with competitive tendering and the privatisation of recreational facilities. Have you, Mr. Speaker, been made aware by the relevant Minister of why the motion relating to the order has not been moved? Do you know whether the matter is to go back to the local authorities for consultation?

Mr. Speaker: I am not aware of that. The fact that the motion has not been moved is not a matter for me, but the hon. Gentleman could ask the Leader of the House that question at business questions tomorrow.

PETITION

Broadcasting (Deaf People)

Ms. Joan Walley: I wish to present a petition on behalf of deaf people in Stoke-on-Trent, North and to bring to the attention of the House the great importance that we attach to ensuring that the broadcasting authorities use proper visual aids. Many people—some 400 in all—have signed the petition, including people from Kidsgrove, Newchapel, Milton and various other parts of my constituency. They pray that the
House will ensure that legislation will be passed placing an obligation on television channel operators to make their programmes more accessible to deaf people by using Teletext subtitles, sign language or other means and to reach complete coverage by a fixed date.
It is important that we should have a policy of equal opportunities, and that deaf people should not be left out of the political and broadcasting life of our country.

To lie upon the Table.

Captain Fred Holroyd

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In 27½years in this House, a man develops an instinct that enables him to discriminate between occasions when he is being sold a pup and occasions when one is being told a basic truth. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and Neil Grant—all credit to them—I have done virtually nothing for Fred Holroyd since he and Colin Wallace came to see me for three and a half hours, five years ago. But because I thought that he was telling the truth, I advised him to put it down in book form or at any rate to set out his case in great detail. With help from Nick Burbridge, Colin Challon, Robin Ramsay and Colin Wallace, Captain Fred Holroyd—Major Fred Holroyd in the Rhodesian forces—has done just that.
Early on Friday afternoon, discovering that I had been lucky in your ballot, Mr. Speaker, I telephoned the private secretary to the Secretary of State for Defence to alert him to the book's existence and to ask him, as a matter of courtesy, to let Sir Michael Quinlan know exactly what was happening.
As I have been scrupulously proper, I hope that the Minister may be able to address himself to the questions that I telephoned through to the office of the Secretary of State for Defence on Monday in the same spirit as I conduct this debate—somewhat in contrast, perhaps. to the way in which the Minister of State, Home Office, answered a previous brief debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East.
If what Captain Holroyd writes is true, it raises the gravest questions about the conduct of the British state in Ireland and in this country.
This is the first book which may challenge the spirit of the Official Secrets Act 1989 head on. Do Ministers condone the book or do they believe that it does not break the spirit of the new Act as it will be when it comes into effect? Will it be passed to the leak inquiry which, as those hon. Members from Ulster who have courteously come to the Chamber tonight and whom if I may I will call my hon. Friends, are aware, is being carried out in Belfast at the moment? The issues that arise are nothing less than allegations about the commissioning of crime by the state.
I will now ask my questions and for the sake of coherence I will put them in the seriatim form that they arise in the book.
From the preface, was Captain Holroyd offered £150,000 compensation by the MOD for his lost Army career? Did he turn down that offer on account of the string attached by the MOD that he had to stop campaigning for Colin Wallace?
On page 47 Holroyd states:
I have my own memories of Captain Robert Nairac and they are mixed. I liked him and saw him as a younger version of myself. He was keen and brave, if a little rash, but totally committed to the war against the terrorists. However there was another side to Robert that I was to learn about. The unit he was involved with, with the cover title '4 Field Survey Troop, Royal Engineers', was involved with the murdering of suspected and known key members of the IRA.
If that is true, who authorised the murdering of suspected IRA members?
Again from page 47, was the SAS operating from Castle Dillon long before the Government of the day were aware of it?
This debate is about accountability. The MOD has admitted that a sub-unit called 4 Field Survey Troop, Royal Engineers was based at Castle Dillon in County Armargh in the 1970s. However, it claims that no records are available today to identify its role. In his book, Captain Holroyd identifies the unit as an undercover SAS troop. Sir Michael Quinlan's office has been given notice of my question, as has the office of the Secretary of State for Defence. Will the Minister check the personal records of Captains Robert Nairac and Julian Ball held by the officers record department of the Grenadier Guards and the King's Own Scottish Borderers to ascertain whether those two officers served as OC and 2IC of that unit between 1973 and 1976?

Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dalyell: Forgive me, I would rather not at the moment.
At the beginning of chapter 5, on page 70, Captain Holroyd states:
The label 'dirty tricks' has been used so widely over recent years that it has lost much of its original impact. But to me it remains the best description of what I discovered happening in Ireland during the time I served there.
What is the MOD's reaction to that? After all, that comes from someone who was supposedly serving the MOD. Will it take any action?
Page 73 refers to the 3rd Infantry Brigade. Did it have a kidnapping policy, as Captain Holroyd claims? On page 77, what does the MOD say about Captain Holroyd's account of Robert Nairac's role in the killing John Francis Green? Who authorised such action? My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East has tried as hard as any person can through parliamentary questions to ascertain the truth, but it just shows that parliamentary questioning is very difficult in such a situation. On pages 78 and 79, what does the MOD say about Captain Holroyd's account of the Miami Showband killings?
On page 83, did and does Army intelligence manufacture bogus press cards for undercover work which directly puts journalists' lives at risk? That is a very serious allegation. On page 110, did the RUC nominate Captain Holroyd for an MBE for gallantry?
On page 111, did General McGhie, head of Army psychiatry, visit Captain Holroyd at Netley? Was he justified in telling Captain Holroyd that he was a "political hot potato"?
On page 113, is Captain Holroyd's police notebook, which was returned by the Devon police, still in the possession of the RUC? Page 123 states:
The Rhodesians were still having trouble with the sanctions that had first been imposed in the sixties when Ian Smith had made the Unilateral Declaration of Independence. The Rhodesian regime was being helped to circumvent sanctions by powerful friends in England, among them MI5.
I was a Member of the House, as you were, Mr. Speaker, during those years. I care about what happened and what did not happen then. Frankly, I want to know whether MI5 circumvented the policy of the then duly elected Government.
On page 126, can the Minister assure the House that no assurance was given to Bishop Muzorewa or any of his


representatives that, if necessary, the election would be rigged to ensure victory? Again, in print, that is a very serious charge indeed.
On page 127, can the Minister assure the House that members of the British Army special forces or any special units of the British Army were in no way involved in the bomb plot targeting Mr. Mugabe during the Rhodesian elections arranged during the Lancaster house talks?
On page 131, was there a meeting in the MOD or in Whitehall, attended by Clive Ponting, at which it was generally conceded that Holroyd's allegations were true and steps to prevent the press taking up the case were discussed?
On page 136, was Kincora used by British Intelligence to blackmail certain key figures in Ulster politics?
Again on page 136, was there a campaign against Harold Wilson of the Labour party which included the dissemination of bogus literature and, if so, who authorised it?
Again on page 136, why was Holroyd, as security manager for Marks and Spencer, told not to turn up during a Prime Minister's visit? Was it anything to do with anybody other than the management of Marks and Spencer?
On page 139, did the British Army, as is suggested, arrange to have Seamus Grew kidnapped in 1974?
With reference to page 142, was the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) authorised to offer a deal to Major Holroyd? I have discussed the matter with the hon. Gentleman, who is aware—

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's courtesy in advising me that he intended to raise this matter tonight. As I have explained the situation in a letter to him, does he accept that that unfortunate person, who came to see me regularly at my surgery, eventually advised me that I had to stop my inquiries because I could be at risk? Some months later, a story appeared in a Sunday newspaper alleging that I had offered him £150,000 from some secret slush fund to keep him quiet. I immediately took up the matter with the Press Council, which found totally in my favour. The Sunday Times had to publish that. When it was referred to later in a television programme called "Channel 4 News", I initiated legal proceedings and had a full and total apology, which was then published in a later edition of "Channel 4 News".
As I have been to court and to the Press Council, and as all the correspondence over that long period is available to anyone who wishes to see it, including the Minister, will the hon. Gentleman at least accept that the story is utter nonsense? On the basis of his long experience in politics, does he accept that the last person that MI5 would use to offer a great deal of money from a slush fund would be the hon. Member for Southend, East?

Mr. Dalyell: I had considerable experience of the hon. Gentleman when he represented Glasgow, Cathcart and I always found him a truthful and honourable political opponent. I have a high personal regard for him. I am prepared to accept that anything that he says in this House is sincerely believed.
On page 152, I must ask whether the chronology is accepted as accurate.
One relevant question that does not originate from "War Without Honour", but which I have asked

previously, is what event or events have prompted so careful a permanent secretary as Sir Michael Quinlan to ask Sir Robin Butler for a public inquiry into Kincora?
If what Captain Holroyd says is remotely true, what was the ministerial control? More important, what ministerial control is there now?
I care about the so-called Wilson-Callaghan years and what happened in Ireland at that time. I care about accountability—past, present and future. I think that the answer to the debate is of consequence to the future of British policy in Ireland.
I hope that the Minister replies in the spirit in which I have raised the matter.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on securing this debate. He is assiduous in championing causes and in seeking justice for the individual. Although I do not share his readiness to believe in all the issues he chooses to pursue, I am impressed by his tenacity and honesty in pursuing them.
On this occasion, the hon. Gentleman has chosen to interest himself in the acount which Mr. Holroyd gives in his recently published book of his life, particularly his Army career, his service in Northern Ireland, and the circumstances of his resignation from the Army. Many of the facts about Mr. Holroyd's Army career are contained in a letter of 21 June last year from the former Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) following a debate in the House the previous day. A copy of that letter is in the Library.
The important phase of Mr. Holroyd's Army career, so far as this debate is concerned, began when he was posted to Northern Ireland to take up an appointment in January 1974 as a military intelligence officer. He arrived in the Province at an early stage in the Army's involvement in the campaign against terrorism there and at a time when there continued to be a very high level of terrorist outrages. Bombings and murder were daily events. There were over 5,000 shooting incidents alone and nearly 1,000 explosions in 1973, and over 3,000 shooting incidents and nearly 700 explosions the following year. Over 500 bombs were neutralised in 1973 and over 400 in 1974. In the same period, ammunition finds exceeded 150,000 rounds a year. Nearly 80 members of the security forces were killed in 1973 and 50 in 1974. The lessons of these experiences were being learned the hard way.
I am proud to say that Army support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the maintenance of law and order in the Province is a duty undertaken in the highest tradition. We owe a debt of thanks to all those who serve there in the most dangerous of circumstances. I know that the hon. Gentleman shares these sentiments.
Mr. Holroyd's job was a demanding one which required long hours of work, often in potentially dangerous situations. Mr Hoiroyd was a dedicated and competent officer but in addition to the inevitable stress of working in such an environment, he also experienced a number of personal problems. His mother died of cancer and his father, who was diagnosed as being terminally ill, also with cancer, spent his last few months with his family in Northern Ireland being nursed by Mr. Holroyd's wife until his death in February 1975. She was also looking


after four children, and Mr. Holroyd himself says that the marriage was already under strain for a number of reasons, including the dangers and long hours associated with his responsibilities in Northern Ireland.
I feel great sympathy for the dilemma in which Mr. Holroyd appears to have found himself. It is evident from his book that he was devoted to the Army and single-mindedly dedicated himself to achieving the most effective results from his work in Northern Ireland. His work meant putting himself at great personal risk. At the same time, he had to cope with an unusual combination of distressing domestic difficulties. The sensitive nature of his duties can only have added to the personal stress involved. It is not for me to judge, almost 15 years after the event, Mr. Holroyd's state of mind at that time. What is clear is that his commanding officer was concerned that the strain on Mr. Holroyd was such that it could affect the judgment and reliability which is essential in such a post. Therefore, his commanding officer raised a non-adverse report on Mr. Holroyd mentioning these worries.
Mr. Holroyd was seen by a psychiatrist, who advised that he should be referred to the Queen Victoria hospital at Netley. Mr. Holroyd attended Netley but was unhappy about the reasons for referring him there and appealed to the Army Board against the potential limitations which his attendance might cause to be placed on his career in the Army. He was assured by the Army Board that these events did not reflect adversely on his character or ability. Mr. Holroyd remained unhappy and sought to have all reference to his mental condition at the time expunged from the record. The Army Board agreed that such references should be deleted except from the medical records which expressed the professional views of the doctors who had seen him.
Mr. Holroyd was dissatisfied with that decision and resigned his commission in September 1976. He seems to have concluded by this time that everyone was against him and, since then, he has sought to express his sense of frustration by turning against those with whom he had served, alleging that his removal from Northern Ireland was the result of a conspiracy. It seems to me that, if anyone had wanted to move him from the Province, there would have been much simpler administrative ways to do so than by organising a wide-ranging conspiracy. Hon. Members will clearly wish to form their own opinions as to which is the more likely course of events.
Given his personal commitment to an Army career, Mr. Holroyd's resignation was an irrevocable act, which I suspect must have caused him much subsequent regret. He has sought to pursue his grievance through other channels. Initially, these included seeking assistance from his Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks). It was also during this period that he first made his allegations that the security forces in Northern Ireland had engaged in illegal activities. These allegations were made to both the police and to journalists. His attempts to interest others in pursuing his grievances or his allegations were largely unsuccessful and appear to have ceased when in 1978 Mr. Holroyd joined the Rhodesian army for three years. But, on his return to the United Kingdom, Mr. Holroyd resumed what he apparently sees as a campaign to clear his name.
In July 1982 Mr. Holroyd made a formal statement to Essex police about illegal activities which he alleged had taken place in Northern Ireland. The matter was passed to the Royal Ulster Constabulary to investigate, and it, assisted by the Royal Military Police, conducted a detailed inquiry. The results of that inquiry were reported by the RUC to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland in December 1984 and he concluded that the evidence did not warrant criminal proceedings against any person or any further investigation.
In 1984, Mr. Holroyd persuaded a journalist to take up his case and three articles appeared in the New Statesman in May that year, as well as an item in a television programme on Channel 4. The issues raised were essentially the same as those which Mr. Holroyd records in his book, and which were investigated by the RUC.
Before tonight's debate, the hon. Gentleman paid me the courtesy of giving me advance notice of the more than 20 detailed questions which he has asked. Those questions have been culled from throughout the text of Mr. Holroyd's book. I shall do my best to deal with each of them and I only hope that there will be sufficient time left to address all the questions that he has raised.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Mr. Holroyd's claim that he was offered a settlement of £150,000. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has dealt with that in a satisfactory way. The Ministry of Defence never offered such a payment and would not have been able to do so, since Mr. Holroyd had resigned his commission. Therefore, no such settlement would have been appropriate.
The hon. Gentleman has asked about a series of aspersions and allegations in Mr. Holroyd's book relating to the late Captain Robert Nairac. Captain Nairac was a dedicated officer who met his death at the hands of terrorists. Such allegations can only cause distress to Captain Nairac's family and it is irresponsible of Mr. Holroyd to impugn Captain Nairac's character and actions without full justification. I can confirm that the RUC has investigated the allegations that Captain Nairac was involved in the killing of John Francis Green and the results were considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, who found no grounds for further action. I understand that there has also been an investigation by the Garda which produced a similar result. In the case of the Miami Showband killings, two people were convicted—following an RUC investigation —of involvement in that revolting murder. The question of Captain Nairac's involvement was investigated by the RUC and no grounds were found to justify further proceedings.
The hon. Gentleman has asked me yet again to comment on claims that SAS units were present in Northern Ireland in the early 1970s. The Government of the day first announced in January 1976 that the SAS Regiment was being sent to Northern Ireland. In making that statement they departed from the more normal practice of making no comment on the activities of the SAS, and I do not intend to follow them down that path by commenting further.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me to say something about a number of other allegations made by Mr. Holroyd concerning dirty tricks and illegal activity by the security forces in Northern Ireland. Those allegations range from kidnapping to assassination. The Government's position on all allegations of illegal activity in Northern Ireland is


that, if anyone has any evidence, they should present it to the proper authorities—the police. Mr. Holroyd's allegations appear to be based largely on hearsay and rumour and do not seem to arise from any direct knowledge of the alleged events.
No doubt Mr. Holroyd is disappointed with the responses of the various police forces which he has approached on these matters, but if he continues to believe that he has direct evidence of any significance relating to illegal activities he should present it to the police. I feel sure that they will investigate any substantive evidence that he can provide.
I should make it clear that no such action is needed in the case of the alleged use of bogus press cards by members of the security forces. That did happen and came to light in 1976. The issue was fully aired at the time and, in answer to a parliamentary question from Mrs. Lena Jeger in February that year, the then Secretary of State for Defence gave an assurance that the practice had been discontinued.
The hon. Gentleman has asked me whether the RUC recommended Mr. Holroyd for an MBE. I am afraid that I can only say that it is not the practice to comment on awards which have not been made. He has also asked me whether Major-General McGhie, the then director of army psychiatry, visited Mr. Holroyd at Netley and told him that he was a political "hot potato". I can confirm that the Major-General did visit Mr. Holroyd at Netley but I cannot say what may have passed in conversation between them and I can think of no reason why such a remark would have been made.
Mr. Holroyd records in his book that he left in a telephone booth some notebooks relating to his duties in Northern Ireland, which he had retained after leaving the Army. He says that those notebooks came into the possession of the Devon police, who passed them to the RUC. I understand that the RUC has retained a number of items provided by Mr. Holroyd either because they were official property or because they contained references to security matters or in case they proved relevant to future inquiries. Among this material is a document containing names and other information about individuals which would put them at risk if the material came into the hands of terrorists. I have no doubt in these circumstances that the House will consider it entirely proper that the document should have been retained.
I have also been asked to comment on three allegations which Mr. Holroyd made concerning his time in Rhodesia. These appear to be rather wild assertions and lack any

kind of credibility. The position of the Government of the day on the subject of sanctions is well known. There is no foundation for the suggestion that Her Majesty's Government tried to rig the elections in Rhodesia in favour of Bishop Muzorewa. As my right hon. Friend the then Lord Privy Seal said on 13 February 1980, it is quite outrageous to suggest that the Government were partisan. They went to very great lengths to ensure that those elections were free and fair. I am afraid that I cannot treat seriously Mr. Holroyd's speculation about British involvement in an alleged plot to blow up Mr. Robert Mugabe.
The hon. Gentleman has also drawn my attention to a suggestion that, at a meeting attended by Mr. Clive Ponting, it was conceded that Mr. Holroyd's allegations were true. It has never been accepted that Mr. Holroyd has justified his allegations of unjust treatment by the Army or of illegal activities by the security forces.
Turning to Kincora, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, Sir George Terry was appointed to take charge of an investigation into allegations relating to homosexual practices there. He reported in 1983 that he found no evidence of a homosexual "ring" at Kincora, or of any cover-up or concealment of evidence by the RUC.
In his book Mr. Holroyd relates that he was interviewed by the Royal Military Police to establish whether he had any knowledge of the affair. He says that he was surprised by those questions since he had known little about the matter at the time and it was not one which he had sought to raise. He was able only to show the police notes in his notebooks recording rumours of homosexual abuse at Kincora. He does not appear to have viewed such rumours as worthy of any action by him when he was in Northern Ireland. Thus his links with the Kincora affair appear pretty tenuous.
In the same context I do not intend to be drawn into comment on speculative press stories about the content of interdepartmental business among officials. But I will say, flatly, that there is no truth in the suggestion of any Ministry of Defence proposals that Kincora—which is not its business—needed to be specially investigated yet again.
I cannot offer much constructive comment on the chronology of the diverse events recorded on page 152—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at thirteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.